Creation vs. Evolution, some more discussion

[domenick2x]

Let me preface by saying that I'm not completely on either side of the yard here. I believe in the effects of evolution, but I also believe in a creative aspect of God.

That being the case:

There are two bits of information that I was pondering during a commute yesterday.

If evolution is bunk, i.e. no new species can be created through this process, then current species must have always existed OR been created out of the firmament sometime in a reasonable past. Example: Homo Sapiens (humans) have a recorded history of a couple of thousand years, and show up in the fossil record at about 200,000 years ago. That 200k would be a starting point for a creationist view. By this theory, new species could crop up at any time, simply because God wished it. However, one would wonder why God hasn't decided to show his will by creating something like a Flying Monkey in Kansas.

On the other hand, the transition of non-organic bits into organic bits is a little tough to stomach. Further transition from first life about 4 billion years ago to the current population of life on Earth seems to be a long stretch. Example: Take that 4 billion, divided by the 200k that we know Homo Sapiens have been around. 20,000 'species cycles' in that time frame. How much more complicated must each species be? By the calculations, I come across on average 0.11% more complicated at each level. The compounded factor seems pretty low to me - I'd think that there'd be a bigger difference at each level.

Where does this lead? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really a possibility here?

[KinjaKahn]

Let me preface by saying that I'm not completely on either side of the yard here. I believe in the effects of evolution, but I also believe in a creative aspect of God.

That being the case:

There are two bits of information that I was pondering during a commute yesterday.

If evolution is bunk, i.e. no new species can be created through this process, then current species must have always existed OR been created out of the firmament sometime in a reasonable past. Example: Homo Sapiens (humans) have a recorded history of a couple of thousand years, and show up in the fossil record at about 200,000 years ago. That 200k would be a starting point for a creationist view. By this theory, new species could crop up at any time, simply because God wished it. However, one would wonder why God hasn't decided to show his will by creating something like a Flying Monkey in Kansas.

On the other hand, the transition of non-organic bits into organic bits is a little tough to stomach. Further transition from first life about 4 billion years ago to the current population of life on Earth seems to be a long stretch. Example: Take that 4 billion, divided by the 200k that we know Homo Sapiens have been around. 20,000 'species cycles' in that time frame. How much more complicated must each species be? By the calculations, I come across on average 0.11% more complicated at each level. The compounded factor seems pretty low to me - I'd think that there'd be a bigger difference at each level.

Where does this lead? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really a possibility here?

Some ideas to throw in the mix... radio carbon dating is only accurate to 60,000 years, and is based on the assumption that the amount of carbon14 in the atmosphere in 1950, has been the same and constant throughout time forward and back.

How many times did life spontaneously form prior to "evolving" a mechanism for reproduction? (ie: the very first life form "accidentally" formed with a method of reproduction.)

[hannitykillspuppies]

Let me preface by saying that I'm not completely on either side of the yard here. I believe in the effects of evolution, but I also believe in a creative aspect of God.

That being the case:

There are two bits of information that I was pondering during a commute yesterday.

If evolution is bunk, i.e. no new species can be created through this process, then current species must have always existed OR been created out of the firmament sometime in a reasonable past. Example: Homo Sapiens (humans) have a recorded history of a couple of thousand years, and show up in the fossil record at about 200,000 years ago. That 200k would be a starting point for a creationist view. By this theory, new species could crop up at any time, simply because God wished it. However, one would wonder why God hasn't decided to show his will by creating something like a Flying Monkey in Kansas.

On the other hand, the transition of non-organic bits into organic bits is a little tough to stomach. Further transition from first life about 4 billion years ago to the current population of life on Earth seems to be a long stretch. Example: Take that 4 billion, divided by the 200k that we know Homo Sapiens have been around. 20,000 'species cycles' in that time frame. How much more complicated must each species be? By the calculations, I come across on average 0.11% more complicated at each level. The compounded factor seems pretty low to me - I'd think that there'd be a bigger difference at each level.

Where does this lead? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really a possibility here?
you're one of those dopes i'm constantly cursing on the road who's off in his own little world rather than paying attention to the road aren't you?

[giddyup4]

Let me preface by saying that I'm not completely on either side of the yard here. I believe in the effects of evolution, but I also believe in a creative aspect of God.

That being the case:

There are two bits of information that I was pondering during a commute yesterday.

If evolution is bunk, i.e. no new species can be created through this process, then current species must have always existed OR been created out of the firmament sometime in a reasonable past. Example: Homo Sapiens (humans) have a recorded history of a couple of thousand years, and show up in the fossil record at about 200,000 years ago. That 200k would be a starting point for a creationist view. By this theory, new species could crop up at any time, simply because God wished it. However, one would wonder why God hasn't decided to show his will by creating something like a Flying Monkey in Kansas.

On the other hand, the transition of non-organic bits into organic bits is a little tough to stomach. Further transition from first life about 4 billion years ago to the current population of life on Earth seems to be a long stretch. Example: Take that 4 billion, divided by the 200k that we know Homo Sapiens have been around. 20,000 'species cycles' in that time frame. How much more complicated must each species be? By the calculations, I come across on average 0.11% more complicated at each level. The compounded factor seems pretty low to me - I'd think that there'd be a bigger difference at each level.

Where does this lead? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster really a possibility here?

First i would like to say that i am a believer in evolution but i also believe in God/higher being/the truth. With all we know today, scientifically it shows that we have evolved. Was there a higher being behind the evolution? I believe so. I think a key word here is Mutation. With everything i have seen on the Discovery/TLC/APL channels and learned in college Mutation was key for our growth as a species as well as any other living species. I dont have a clue as to when life started but i know it was a simple organism a long time ago.

[domenick2x]

you're one of those dopes i'm constantly cursing on the road who's off in his own little world rather than paying attention to the road aren't you?
No, I'm not. My commute is slow and steady, and nowhere near you.

[Hotpapa666]

First, anyone who uses the word belief in reference to evolution is starting the discussion off in the wrong terms. Evolution isn't something to be believed in. You are either compelled by the libraries full of data or you aren't. It is really that simple. If you have a question about evolution, go to a text about evolution. If you have a question about organic chemistry, go to a text about organic chemistry... Science requires you to leave your beliefs at the door and use information to make decisions.

If anyone has specific questions about evolution I would be more than happy to engage in a dialogue and try to answer those questions.

[giddyup4]

First, anyone who uses the word belief in reference to evolution is starting the discussion off in the wrong terms. Evolution isn't something to be believed in. You are either compelled by the libraries full of data or you aren't. It is really that simple. If you have a question about evolution, go to a text about evolution. If you have a question about organic chemistry, go to a text about organic chemistry... Science requires you to leave your beliefs at the door and use information to make decisions.

If anyone has specific questions about evolution I would be more than happy to engage in a dialogue and try to answer those questions.

Damn, you are a stickler when it comes to using correct terminology.lol. It also sounds like you need to lighten up a little. Science is a wonderful thing but even scientists get it wrong. Why? cause their human.

[Hotpapa666]

Damn, you are a stickler when it comes to using correct terminology.lol. It also sounds like you need to lighten up a little. Science is a wonderful thing but even scientists get it wrong. Why? cause their human.

I just want to simplify the discussion using the wrong terms confuses the issue...

Of course scientist get things wrong. But, through the course of discovery in evolution, science has been consistantly moving in the right direction.

[Roy Munson]

I just want to simplify the discussion using the wrong terms confuses the issue...

Of course scientist get things wrong. But, through the course of discovery in evolution, science has been consistantly moving in the right direction.
http://www.myfungraphics.com/images/south-park/al-gore-is-manbearpig.jpg

[Hotpapa666]

http://www.myfungraphics.com/images/south-park/al-gore-is-manbearpig.jpg

All I have to say is that they found the croco-duck.

[BambinoBear]

First, anyone who uses the word belief in reference to evolution is starting the discussion off in the wrong terms. Evolution isn't something to be believed in. You are either compelled by the libraries full of data or you aren't. It is really that simple. If you have a question about evolution, go to a text about evolution. If you have a question about organic chemistry, go to a text about organic chemistry... Science requires you to leave your beliefs at the door and use information to make decisions.

If anyone has specific questions about evolution I would be more than happy to engage in a dialogue and try to answer those questions.

If we evolved from monkey's where did all the different races come from?

[pnkpanther]

if we were created why didnt God let his presence be known to western world?

[domenick2x]

If we evolved from monkey's where did all the different races come from?
Different breeds of dogs have different coloration.

Polar Bears vs. Grizzlies.

[swordfish]

Can we get past the Why didn't God do it the way I would scenarios. I don't understand the big conflict with evolution and God. It did take seven days. Hes got an incubator or something. Why not just cook it all up at once? You are all powerful. Nobody knows, you can sit around and ponder all you want. Your not going to find out. ever.

[Vegas]

First, anyone who uses the word belief in reference to evolution is starting the discussion off in the wrong terms. Evolution isn't something to be believed in. You are either compelled by the libraries full of data or you aren't. It is really that simple. If you have a question about evolution, go to a text about evolution. If you have a question about organic chemistry, go to a text about organic chemistry... Science requires you to leave your beliefs at the door and use information to make decisions.

If anyone has specific questions about evolution I would be more than happy to engage in a dialogue and try to answer those questions.

You've been asked before to back up these claims and you've provided nothing. How about if you just give us one absolute fact of evolution out of those libraries full of books. Just one absolute fact that proves evolution.

[domenick2x]

You've been asked before to back up these claims and you've provided nothing. How about if you just give us one absolute fact of evolution out of those libraries full of books. Just one absolute fact that proves evolution.
There is no evidence of Humans (homo sapiens) existing prior to 200,000 years ago, yet there IS evidence that the world existed and that various animals and human-like creatures did exist prior to that time.

This is not proof of Evolution, but proof that a literal translation of the Bible (i.e. Creationist view) is not correct.

Evolution is a theory. Theories by definition cannot be proven, they can only be disproven. Give one absolute fact that disproves Evolution.

[Vegas]

There is no evidence of Humans (homo sapiens) existing prior to 200,000 years ago, yet there IS evidence that the world existed and that various animals and human-like creatures did exist prior to that time.

This is not proof of Evolution, but proof that a literal translation of the Bible (i.e. Creationist view) is not correct.

Evolution is a theory. Theories by definition cannot be proven, they can only be disproven. Give one absolute fact that disproves Evolution.

The idea that lower life forms became more complex is an absolute violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[domenick2x]

The idea that lower life forms became more complex is an absolute violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
So is conception to birth to maturity.

But it happens with living things.

[Vegas]

So is conception to birth to maturity.

But it happens with living things.

That's not true. DNA is an ordering mechanism. It doesn't happen with living things.

[domenick2x]

That's not true. DNA is an ordering mechanism. It doesn't happen with living things.
So your 'system' for an individual fits the 2nd Law (being within that body, I assume)... but you can't conceive of a system for the 2nd Law that would apply to evolution?

Example: I have a warm sugar solution. Within the cup, as long as I don't permit evaporation, and keep it warm, I'll still have the same solution. If I allow evaporation, I'll end up with sugar crystallization. If the sugar crystallization were to occur spontaneously (and not as a result of energy being transferred out of the cup via evaporation), I'd have a violation of the 2nd Law. Since I DO have a 'larger system' of cup + air, I have no violation.

To apply to evolution - I have a 'system' of members of a species. We know that mutations occur all the time - a number of mutations will have negative effects, often resulting in stillborn children. Some, probably a very small number, will have positive mutations. That's your '2nd Law' balance. Some of those mutations will be passed on via natural selection.

The trick is how many mutations can possibly occur, be beneficial, be passed on, and result in a coherent new species. That's where (as I stated in the first post) I don't know that the numbers jive.

EDIT: Whups, I'm on the 1st Law, not the second.

EDIT #2: Okay, 2nd Law.
The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Define, in a species view, 'equilibrium' and 'system'.

[Vegas]

EDIT #2: Okay, 2nd Law.
The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Define, in a species view, 'equilibrium' and 'system'.

Entropy increases over time. It applies to everything including a species. Mutations are harmful 1000x more often than they are helpful and helpful mutations are helpful only in a narrow sense. As time goes on, genetic defects increase overall. It follows the 2nd law.

Also, we see the extinction of 1000 to 10,000 species a year, but we don't see any new species evolving out of existing species. If evolution is the mechanism for speciation, why are we only seeing extinction?

[KinjaKahn]

Evolution is in fact a belief and a quite popular one.

[domenick2x]

Entropy increases over time. It applies to everything including a species. Mutations are harmful 1000x more often than they are helpful and helpful mutations are helpful only in a narrow sense. As time goes on, genetic defects increase overall. It follows the 2nd law.

Also, we see the extinction of 1000 to 10,000 species a year, but we don't see any new species evolving out of existing species. If evolution is the mechanism for speciation, why are we only seeing extinction?
Maybe because species extinction is REALLY easy to see in the short term. Species creation is not.

Again, define 'equilibrium' and 'system' with respect to species, and we can have a discussion on this. I don't have ways to define them... but you brought the 2nd Law into this.

[Vegas]

Maybe because species extinction is REALLY easy to see in the short term. Species creation is not.

Again, define 'equilibrium' and 'system' with respect to species, and we can have a discussion on this. I don't have ways to define them... but you brought the 2nd Law into this.

You're using a narrow heat engine definition of the 2nd law and ignoring that the law applies to everything.

[domenick2x]

You're using a narrow heat engine definition of the 2nd law and ignoring that the law applies to everything.
I agree, it applies to everything.

Hell, just define 'system'. We can probably agree that 'Life' isn't likely to be in equilibrium. But until you define the system, in large enough scale to encompass the changes, what you say is a violation could be part of the overall trend toward chaos - a mere speedbump, if you will, in the downhill slope of the universe.

[giddyup4]

I just want to simplify the discussion using the wrong terms confuses the issue...
Of course scientist get things wrong. But, through the course of discovery in evolution, science has been consistantly moving in the right direction.

Im not sure I know what you mean. Please explain.

[giddyup4]

I have a question. Can anyone explain where energy comes from?

[domenick2x]

I have a question. Can anyone explain where energy comes from?
No. Nobody can.

Energy is, Mass is - and there's a relationship between them.

[giddyup4]

No. Nobody can.

Energy is, Mass is - and there's a relationship between them.

I didnt think so. Maybe thats the link between man and God.

[IBC]

I didnt think so. Maybe thats the link between man and God.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. It certainly "could be", but it is no evidence.

[KinjaKahn]

No. Nobody can.

Energy is, Mass is - and there's a relationship between them.
E=MC2

[giddyup4]

Absence of evidence is not evidence. It certainly "could be", but it is no evidence.

Just pondering. But its a possibility. Everything got started somehow and i believe that its energy. Maybe that energy is a higher power.

[domenick2x]

E=MC2
Exactly. Which implies that the sum of mass and energy in the universe is contant = you cannot create or destroy either energy or matter, you can only convert between those states. Like having an icepack that you put in the freezer - you can freeze it solid, or let it go liquid, but the total amount of 'stuff' inside never changes.

[domenick2x]

Just pondering. But its a possibility. Everything got started somehow and i believe that its energy. Maybe that energy is a higher power.
Then see post 33. If what you posit is true, I am God. And so are you.

[IBC]

Then see post 33. If what you posit is true, I am God. And so are you.

That is a happy thought.

[domenick2x]

That is a happy thought.
Blasphemer!

[giddyup4]

Then see post 33. If what you posit is true, I am God. And so are you.

possibly. some of us just dont know it. The kingdom of heaven is not something you rise to after you are dead. Its inside you right now.

[KinjaKahn]

Exactly. Which implies that the sum of mass and energy in the universe is contant = you cannot create or destroy either energy or matter, you can only convert between those states. Like having an icepack that you put in the freezer - you can freeze it solid, or let it go liquid, but the total amount of 'stuff' inside never changes.
I would have elaborated but i didn't feel like typing.

[domenick2x]

I would have elaborated but i didn't feel like typing.
Which is why I dodged the equation in the first place.

You tricked me! :)

[Hotpapa666]

Entropy increases over time. It applies to everything including a species. Mutations are harmful 1000x more often than they are helpful and helpful mutations are helpful only in a narrow sense. As time goes on, genetic defects increase overall. It follows the 2nd law.

Also, we see the extinction of 1000 to 10,000 species a year, but we don't see any new species evolving out of existing species. If evolution is the mechanism for speciation, why are we only seeing extinction?

Entropy applies only to energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

There is nothing in evolution that violates entropy.

[LSU]

Entropy applies only to energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

There is nothing in evolution that violates entropy.


Too simplistic of a response. E=MC^2, so you and any other organism comprised of matter is directly related to energy.

[LSU]

I see Vegas brings up the formidable (not really) 2nd law again.

I've (in the past) had a few arguments against that (either that it follows entropy to the letter of the law or that entropy doesn't apply to evolution).

But this time, I'll go a little different route. More of a philosophical endeavour.

There are certain laws in the universe that we believe are true (I say "believe" because they are all based on what man knows and can experiment on, so it's limited in that regard).

Anyway, to me it would be logical that if God created the universe, he would've also had to have established the laws of the universe.

So the question is, does God have to operate within the laws he has established?

Don't confuse this with whether or not God can change the laws if he wants to. That's a different situation. The question is if God, once he establishes certain laws, is bound to those laws in his actions, at least until he decides the laws need changing. Or can God do stuff outside of his established laws without changing those laws (in other words, do his best impression of Steven Seagal and be above the law)?

Or do you really not know how that would work?

[Hotpapa666]

Too simplistic of a response. E=MC^2, so you and any other organism comprised of matter is directly related to energy.

I was worried about that. I am no thermodynamicist but I do know that the second law of thermodynamics is still not violated by evolution. There is no energy (or in your more complex model , matter) gained in the system, cold things aren't making hot things hotter....

[LSU]

I was worried about that. I am no thermodynamicist but I do know that the second law of thermodynamics is still not violated by evolution. There is no energy (or in your more complex model , matter) gained in the system, cold things aren't making hot things hotter....

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the explanation in regards to the 2nd law was lacking.


The first question is whether or not the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the planet, life, or an organism is an open or closed system. Some will argue it doesn't matter, others will say it does.

The second question is whether overall entropy (increase in disorder) is still achieved, even though there are segments that are become more ordered. Just as an example, photosynthesis still follows the second law, even though it takes light energy, water, and CO2 and makes it glucose. It's only 30% (at best) efficient, so there still a 70% loss efficiency. Certainly more disorder than order. And then the conversion in any organism of glucose (or whatever their preferred carbon source is) to ATP is not 100% efficient. So in the process of acquiring energy to live, energy is lost in doing so. That follows the 2nd law perfectly. Overall increase in entropy.

[Hotpapa666]

You were fleshing out my argument? Thanks. Your explaination is probably better than mine would've been.

[LSU]

You were fleshing out my argument? Thanks. Your explaination is probably better than mine would've been.



I don't know. That's my answer. I don't know if it was yours or not.

But my answer is nothing new. I've gave the same one numerous times before.

[Hotpapa666]

I don't know. That's my answer. I don't know if it was yours or not.

But my answer is nothing new. I've gave the same one numerous times before.

Yeah, I think I've read them. Anyway, good to hang out with you and the others. I'd approach your philosophical post but I am going stir crazy in the house and need to hit some golf balls.

[Vegas]

Entropy applies only to energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

There is nothing in evolution that violates entropy.

Wrong and wrong. Entropy applies to everything and evolution absolutely violates the law of increasing entropy.

[Vegas]

I see Vegas brings up the formidable (not really) 2nd law again.

I've (in the past) had a few arguments against that (either that it follows entropy to the letter of the law or that entropy doesn't apply to evolution).

But this time, I'll go a little different route. More of a philosophical endeavour.

There are certain laws in the universe that we believe are true (I say "believe" because they are all based on what man knows and can experiment on, so it's limited in that regard).

Anyway, to me it would be logical that if God created the universe, he would've also had to have established the laws of the universe.

So the question is, does God have to operate within the laws he has established?

Don't confuse this with whether or not God can change the laws if he wants to. That's a different situation. The question is if God, once he establishes certain laws, is bound to those laws in his actions, at least until he decides the laws need changing. Or can God do stuff outside of his established laws without changing those laws (in other words, do his best impression of Steven Seagal and be above the law)?

Or do you really not know how that would work?

How many examples have you given (or has anyone else given) that shows a decrease in entropy in any system? Evolutionists talk in vague terms of cases where entropy decreases, but nobody ever gives a real example.

[LSU]

How many examples have you given (or has anyone else given) that shows a decrease in entropy in any system? Evolutionists talk in vague terms of cases where entropy decreases, but nobody ever gives a real example.


Oh, you must not remember ice. Water, a fluid, by physical properties, becomes shaped as ice (more ordered).

Is that too vague? Because that's one I've used before.

No ordering mechanism, but there's definitely more order in an ice cube or icicle than a puddle of water.

I suppose I only speak in vague terms when you discount or forget all the specifics that have been given in the past year or so.

[Vegas]

Oh, you must not remember ice. Water, a fluid, by physical properties, becomes shaped as ice (more ordered).

Is that too vague? Because that's one I've used before.

No ordering mechanism, but there's definitely more order in an ice cube or icicle than a puddle of water.

I suppose I only speak in vague terms when you discount or forget all the specifics that have been given in the past year or so.

And I've pointed out that example is wrong.

[Roy Munson]

Oh, you must not remember ice. Water, a fluid, by physical properties, becomes shaped as ice (more ordered).

Is that too vague? Because that's one I've used before.

No ordering mechanism, but there's definitely more order in an ice cube or icicle than a puddle of water.

I suppose I only speak in vague terms when you discount or forget all the specifics that have been given in the past year or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

[LSU]

And I've pointed out that example is wrong.



Ice, snowflakes, etc aren't more ordered? How about NaCl in water? Sodium and chloride ions (less ordered) form salt (more ordered) when energy is applied and the water evaporates. Salt crystals aren't more ordered than individual ions in solution?

[Vegas]

Ice, snowflakes, etc aren't more ordered? How about NaCl in water? Sodium and chloride ions (less ordered) form salt (more ordered) when energy is applied and the water evaporates. Salt crystals aren't more ordered than individual ions in solution?

The apparent ordering of an ice crystal is dependent on the internal arrangement of the atoms in the ice. It's built-in.

[LSU]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

Right. A decrease in entropy, while the overall system maintains its trend towards disorder.


Water freezes because the water molecules lose energy and slow down, forming crystals. The energy lost (heat) maintains the overall increase in entropy, even though the water molecules are more highly ordered. A general trend towards disorder, but not everything must be disordered all at once.

[LSU]

The apparent ordering of an ice crystal is dependent on the internal arrangement of the atoms in the ice. It's built-in.


Kind of like Adenine pairing with Thymine or Uracil and Cytosine pairing with Guanine.

[Vegas]

Kind of like Adenine pairing with Thymine or Uracil and Cytosine pairing with Guanine.

But those have to happen in highly ordered sequences. It's not a valid comparison by any means.

[LSU]

But those have to happen in highly ordered sequences. It's not a valid comparison by any means.



I don't follow.

[domenick2x]

Wrong and wrong. Entropy applies to everything and evolution absolutely violates the law of increasing entropy.
Bullshit.

Here's some more reference material.

From a chemical point of view of life, the thing that keeps our world going is the continual receiving of energy from the sun and the re-radiating of heat that keeps out planet from over heating. The earth is not a closed system, the reception of energy from the sun provides the possibility of process which locally decrease entropy (even though on a large scale entropy still increases)...

Entropy and Life
To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy... How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.

To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news...

http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php

[fahvra]

If we evolved from monkey's where did all the different races come from?

different areas of the planet.

[fahvra]

Entropy increases over time. It applies to everything including a species. Mutations are harmful 1000x more often than they are helpful and helpful mutations are helpful only in a narrow sense. As time goes on, genetic defects increase overall. It follows the 2nd law.

Also, we see the extinction of 1000 to 10,000 species a year, but we don't see any new species evolving out of existing species. If evolution is the mechanism for speciation, why are we only seeing extinction?

because youre looking at a few thousand years at best compared to a million.

[domenick2x]

because youre looking at a few thousand years at best compared to a million.
Also, if we strictly apply the 2nd Law to life, we should all be devolving into lower forms with every generation.


Fahvra's great great great grandchild will be a sponge...

[Vegas]

Bullshit.

Here's some more reference material.

From a chemical point of view of life, the thing that keeps our world going is the continual receiving of energy from the sun and the re-radiating of heat that keeps out planet from over heating. The earth is not a closed system, the reception of energy from the sun provides the possibility of process which locally decrease entropy (even though on a large scale entropy still increases)...

Entropy and Life
To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy... How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.

To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news...

http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php

This is quite simply 100% wrong. Entropy increases faster in an open system when raw energy is applied. That argument is made by people who have a poor understanding of entropy. Try getting an example of any open system where you poor in raw energy and see a decrease of entropy.

[domenick2x]

This is quite simply 100% wrong. Entropy increases faster in an open system when raw energy is applied. That argument is made by people who have a poor understanding of entropy. Try getting an example of any open system where you poor in raw energy and see a decrease of entropy.
Can I get a reference on your PhD in Physics? At least the author of the article claims to have one...

Sunlight = energy, evaporation of water = increase in entropy.

Offset that by the local phenomena of plants receiving sunlight, converting it to usable chemical energy, breaking up CO2 into O2 and usable carbon.

Across the entire globe, I guarantee that the evaporation + CO2 conversion entropic increase is significantly more than the gross combination of plant conversion (local) entropic decrease. And that's just to start.

[Vegas]

Can I get a reference on your PhD in Physics? At least the author of the article claims to have one...

I don't have a PhD but have studied thermodynamics enough to know this guy has it wrong. There is a fundamental equation for entropy in an open system that says entropy increases with time.

[domenick2x]

I don't have a PhD but have studied thermodynamics enough to know this guy has it wrong. There is a fundamental equation for entropy in an open system that says entropy increases with time.
Hey, here's another PhD calling bullshit.

And here is why it's wrong: The Second Law is not violated by either mutation or natural selection, which are the major actions in neo-Darwinian evolution. If an overall process of evolution is split into many small steps involving mutation followed by selection, each step is permitted by the second Law, and so is the overall process.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.htm

I can do this all day.

[Vegas]

Hey, here's another PhD calling bullshit.



http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.htm

I can do this all day.

I can post articles written by guys with a PhD all day that refute that, too. But that doesn't matter when your predisposition is to believe in evolution.

It's circular reasoning BTW. Evolution doesn't violate because it happened. And since it doesn't violate it happened. That's hardly a proof.

And it doesn't change the fact that there is a fundamental equation showing an increase in entropy in open systems.

[domenick2x]

I can post articles written by guys with a PhD all day that refute that, too. But that doesn't matter when your predisposition is to believe in evolution.

It's circular reasoning BTW. Evolution doesn't violate because it happened. And since it doesn't violate it happened. That's hardly a proof.

And it doesn't change the fact that there is a fundamental equation showing an increase in entropy in open systems.
I would love to read them.

Entropy increases faster in an open system when raw energy is applied.

Water freezes to ice. Open system, but locally there are spots of lowering entropy. Overall, entropy is increasing though - heat released into the air.

[Vegas]

I would love to read them.



Water freezes to ice. Open system, but locally there are spots of lowering entropy. Overall, entropy is increasing though - heat released into the air.

http://www.icr.org/article/245/

http://www.icr.org/article/52/

[Ed Who?]

I would love to read them.



Water freezes to ice. Open system, but locally there are spots of lowering entropy. Overall, entropy is increasing though - heat released into the air.

The anomalies that you mention are vital to much of the life on this planet. Just one of thousands of "circumstances" that make so much more sense if there's a Grand Designer who cared to put those details into our framework.

[domenick2x]

http://www.icr.org/article/245/

http://www.icr.org/article/52/
Very cool, I'll hit those later.

I guess my point is that I understand the concern about 2nd Law vs Evolution - but that the 2nd Law in and of itself doesn't exclude evolution. At least in my opinion.

However, I do look forward to further educating myself on the other viewpoint.

[domenick2x]

The anomalies that you mention are vital to much of the life on this planet. Just one of thousands of "circumstances" that make so much more sense if there's a Grand Designer who cared to put those details into our framework.
I don't know if 'Grand Designer', in the point of view of an ongoing architect, is exactly right.

Creator, who set up the system, turned it on, and let it run? I'm on board with that, generally speaking.

[Roy Munson]

The earth is not a closed system

This being the key...

[Roy Munson]

Also, if we strictly apply the 2nd Law to life, we should all be devolving into lower forms with every generation.


Fahvra's great great great grandchild will be a sponge...
if it hasn't happened already, I doubt 3 more generations will do the trick.

[domenick2x]

if it hasn't happened already, I doubt 3 more generations will do the trick.
I think I agree with that. And since there's no proof in the fossil record that we were once (or all creatures were originally) of higher complexity, then that theory must be false.

Right?

[LSU]

http://www.icr.org/article/245/

http://www.icr.org/article/52/


That's truly FUCKING B-E-A-UTIFUL!

You talk about Dom's sources having a predisposition to evolution and fitting the 2nd law around it...

And then you go and refute it with ICR stuff!!

Oh, the glorious irony.

Hey Dom, before you do anything with ICR, go to their main page and read their mission statement. It's choice.

start here.

http://www.icr.org/discover/

[IBC]

That's truly FUCKING B-E-A-UTIFUL!

You talk about Dom's sources having a predisposition to evolution and fitting the 2nd law around it...

And then you go and refute it with ICR stuff!!

Oh, the glorious irony.

Hey Dom, before you do anything with ICR, go to their main page and read their mission statement. It's choice.

start here.

http://www.icr.org/discover/
Did ICR do the museum?

[domenick2x]

http://www.icr.org/article/245/

http://www.icr.org/article/52/
Interesting selections.

One by a PhD in Hydraulic Engineering, most recent reference less than 20 years old.

The other by a PhD in Biochemistry (I lend more credence to this one), but with no reference less than 30 years old.

One would think that there might be some more recent scientific evidence since then to support one side or the other, no? Not that that necessarily invalidates their deductions - but for a couple of hundred years Newton was the end-all-be-all with respect to gravity, motion, etc.... then Einstein came along, and clarified a couple of things.

[LSU]

Interesting selections.

One by a PhD in Hydraulic Engineering, most recent reference less than 20 years old.

The other by a PhD in Biochemistry (I lend more credence to this one), but with no reference less than 30 years old.

One would think that there might be some more recent scientific evidence since then to support one side or the other, no? Not that that necessarily invalidates their deductions - but for a couple of hundred years Newton was the end-all-be-all with respect to gravity, motion, etc.... then Einstein came along, and clarified a couple of things.


The other thing to watch is where these guys got their degrees. Some come from pretty highly respected programs. I won't deny that. But ICR has a "graduate" school, and they perpetuate their own ideas and call it a PhD. Not all, but some.

[domenick2x]

The other thing to watch is where these guys got their degrees. Some come from pretty highly respected programs. I won't deny that. But ICR has a "graduate" school, and they perpetuate their own ideas and call it a PhD. Not all, but some.
The PhD in Biochem is from Berkeley. That's got some weight.

But still, I'd think that there are better references than from 1960 to be had.

[LSU]

The PhD in Biochem is from Berkeley. That's got some weight.

But still, I'd think that there are better references than from 1960 to be had.

Fucking hippie.


Perhaps the Berkeley physics dept has some online information on the 2nd law or the biochem and or bio dept regarding evolution?

[swordfish]

The other thing to watch is where these guys got their degrees. Some come from pretty highly respected programs. I won't deny that. But ICR has a "graduate" school, and they perpetuate their own ideas and call it a PhD. Not all, but some.

Jackpot

[LSU]

The PhD in Biochem is from Berkeley. That's got some weight.

But still, I'd think that there are better references than from 1960 to be had.

Oh, I just clicked on the link to see who the biochemist author is.

Gish.


Have a google search of Gish. It's interesting.

[domenick2x]

Oh, I just clicked on the link to see who the biochemist author is.

Gish.


Have a google search of Gish. It's interesting.
I'm thinking along the same lines, found this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp

He's advocating literal biblicity.

Pshaw.

[fahvra]

Entropy increases over time. It applies to everything including a species. Mutations are harmful 1000x more often than they are helpful and helpful mutations are helpful only in a narrow sense. As time goes on, genetic defects increase overall. It follows the 2nd law.

Also, we see the extinction of 1000 to 10,000 species a year, but we don't see any new species evolving out of existing species. If evolution is the mechanism for speciation, why are we only seeing extinction?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24370517/wid/18298287&GT1=45002

[Vegas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24370517/wid/18298287&GT1=45002

Can anyone say for sure that these just evolved or whether they just got discovered?

[fahvra]

Can anyone say for sure that these just evolved or whether they just got discovered?



no god just put them there yesterday.

[domenick2x]

no god just put them there yesterday.
He's a tricky God.

[KinjaKahn]

He's a tricky God.
Not as tricky as the devil who's got you duped into believing Evolution is a replacement for God.

[domenick2x]

Not as tricky as the devil who's got you duped into believing Evolution is a replacement for God.
Yeah.

I don't see where belief in evolution excludes belief in God.

It clearly DOES mean you can't interpret the Bible literally. Which I agree with, even if evolution is proven to be false. To my knowledge, there has been no such proof.

[residenceevil]

I am of the opinion that something (God? Energy? Intergalactic particles colliding and then gravitation pull forcing the particles to fuse together to form this giant Earth?) created the Earth. Life then evolved from it's creation to where we're at today.

Clearly the World existed before common man did (which I know violates the literal interpretation of the Bible). The link between what the World was before man and after, we'll never know....

It's like those lost year's in Jesus' life between like 9 and 30....we'll never know what happened during that time. We can argue about it all we want though since it's good discussion. But I think and hope everyone know's it's not going to get us anywhere in the end.

[LSU]

It's like those lost year's in Jesus' life between like 9 and 30....we'll never know what happened during that time. We can argue about it all we want though since it's good discussion. But I think and hope everyone know's it's not going to get us anywhere in the end.



He was corrupted by the liberal activist public school system.

[KinjaKahn]

Yeah.

I don't see where belief in evolution excludes belief in God.

It clearly DOES mean you can't interpret the Bible literally. Which I agree with, even if evolution is proven to be false. To my knowledge, there has been no such proof.
I would love to see the evidence you have to support the creation of Eve from Adam's rib within the realm of evolution. I'll wait patiently...

Evolution collapsed with the bacterial flagellum; aka rotary motor, scientist's threw a temper tantrum, and deny the simple reality that Darwin's theory is a failure.

[LSU]

I would love to see the evidence you have to support the creation of Eve from Adam's rib within the realm of evolution. I'll wait patiently...

Evolution collapsed with the bacterial flagellum; aka rotary motor, scientist's threw a temper tantrum, and deny the simple reality that Darwin's theory is a failure.


The new gold standard.

http://mindfad.com/boards/lmao_einstein.jpg

[KinjaKahn]

If they dont throw temper tantrums they sweat, act dismissive and laugh hysterically. Meanwhile... reality trudges on.

[LSU]

If they dont throw temper tantrums they sweat, act dismissive and laugh hysterically. Meanwhile... reality trudges on.


Kinda like ROFL.

But I don't say that as much as others do.

[KinjaKahn]

Kinda like ROFL.

But I don't say that as much as others do.

I ROFL when something is funny, not when I have nothing to counter with. Unlike some others do. Meanwhile... Darwin states his theory totally breaks down if there are "multiple" changes that have no function until all changes are present... Taste it Doc, its real... and your faith in Darwin is faulty.

[LSU]

I ROFL when something is funny, not when I have nothing to counter with. Unlike some others do. Meanwhile... Darwin states his theory totally breaks down if there are "multiple" changes that have no function until all changes are present... Taste it Doc, its real... and your faith in Darwin is faulty.


No, I use my LMAO when people don't know what they're talking about. If I felt like taking the time, I'd have plenty to counter with. But I know the "discussion" would just be a waste of my time.

So in regards to the above quote,

http://www.buffettworld.com/forum/forumimages/LOL_lmao.jpg

[KinjaKahn]

No, I use my LMAO when people don't know what they're talking about. If I felt like taking the time, I'd have plenty to counter with. But I know the "discussion" would just be a waste of my time.

So in regards to the above quote,

http://www.buffettworld.com/forum/forumimages/LOL_lmao.jpg

This is where it always ends... instead of temper tantrums stomping feet and wailing... its aversion. It's ok Doc... tomorrows a new day for your synthetic facade...


Clue: You cannot prove evolution... :)

[Hotpapa666]

This is where it always ends... instead of temper tantrums stomping feet and wailing... its aversion. It's ok Doc... tomorrows a new day for your synthetic facade...


Clue: You cannot prove evolution... :)

I'll clear it up for you if don't understand LSU's post. The idea that there is not a good evolutionary explaination for flagella is laughable and demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. The same way that the folks who say that the eye is too complex to have evolved. It can be domonstrated to have evolved at least 7 independant times in our histroy.

Again you ask for proof, again, you offer none of your own. Only hyperbole.

[Vegas]

I'll clear it up for you if don't understand LSU's post. The idea that there is not a good evolutionary explaination for flagella is laughable and demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. The same way that the folks who say that the eye is too complex to have evolved. It can be domonstrated to have evolved at least 7 independant times in our histroy.

Again you ask for proof, again, you offer none of your own. Only hyperbole.

I can't believe you said something else was laughable when you made this post. It can be demonstrated? That's hysterical. Where do I sign up to see this demonstration?

[Hotpapa666]

I can't believe you said something else was laughable when you made this post. It can be demonstrated? That's hysterical. Where do I sign up to see this demonstration?

Here is a simple, primer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Here's a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Here's one that contains an animated piece.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

It also contains an interesting quote: Darwin referred to the evolution of complex organs by natural selection as presenting a problem for the imagination, not the reason.

The science behind the evolution of the eye is rock solid. Of course, you will now say, "it's not enough to convince you" and I will say "What would be enough?" and you will either not respond at all or answer in a vague meaningless way as you have done in the past.

[Vegas]

Here is a simple, primer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Here's a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Here's one that contains an animated piece.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

It also contains an interesting quote: Darwin referred to the evolution of complex organs by natural selection as presenting a problem for the imagination, not the reason.

The science behind the evolution of the eye is rock solid. Of course, you will now say, "it's not enough to convince you" and I will say "What would be enough?" and you will either not respond at all or answer in a vague meaningless way as you have done in the past.

Some wiki links sure aren't going to do it for me. I want to see that demonstration you alluded to.

[Vegas]

The science behind the evolution of the eye is rock solid. Of course, you will now say, "it's not enough to convince you" and I will say "What would be enough?" and you will either not respond at all or answer in a vague meaningless way as you have done in the past.

And speculation is hardly rock solid. It's speculation until it can be proven or disproven. You make this post yet you've ignored my asking for one absolutely known fact about evolution, which I've asked more than once. Your cavalier attitude about how this is all settled science is very funny.

[Hotpapa666]

And speculation is hardly rock solid. It's speculation until it can be proven or disproven. You make this post yet you've ignored my asking for one absolutely known fact about evolution, which I've asked more than once. Your cavalier attitude about how this is all settled science is very funny.

Cavalier? If you want to call using libraries full of data in many disciplines cavalier, then you are either creating a new definition for the word, or you are simply wrong.

And, I'm not speculating. The evolution of the eye has been very well documented. If you don't like my links, go to a library at UNLV, pick up a text on the subject and read their explaination; they will probably have richer explainations than anything I can find on the net. The evolution of the eye is so well understood that it is part of many basic biology texts as well.

As for you wanting facts. I've given you facts, you ignore them, I give you more facts... On the flip side, I ask you for one iota of data to suport creation and the best you can do is go to a 2,000 year old book and your "faith".

[Vegas]

Cavalier? If you want to call using libraries full of data in many disciplines cavalier, then you are either creating a new definition for the word, or you are simply wrong.

And, I'm not speculating. The evolution of the eye has been very well documented. If you don't like my links, go to a library at UNLV, pick up a text on the subject and read their explaination; they will probably have richer explainations than anything I can find on the net. The evolution of the eye is so well understood that it is part of many basic biology texts as well.

As for you wanting facts. I've given you facts, you ignore them, I give you more facts... On the flip side, I ask you for one iota of data to suport creation and the best you can do is go to a 2,000 year old book and your "faith".

There you go again with more of the same.

And you didn't give me one absolute known fact of evolution (again). Have a nice day.

[Hotpapa666]

There you go again with more of the same.

And you didn't give me one absolute known fact of evolution (again). Have a nice day.

I've given you plenty of data, plenty of information. You choose to shove it behind your veil of denial. Keep on picking and choosing which parts of scientific discovery that fit your world view and using those. Keep typing away on the computer that scientific discovery allowed on one hand and denying the scientific discovery in regards to evolution on the other. And by all means keep neglecting to see the irony in your actions.

[domenick2x]

I would love to see the evidence you have to support the creation of Eve from Adam's rib within the realm of evolution. I'll wait patiently...

Evolution collapsed with the bacterial flagellum; aka rotary motor, scientist's threw a temper tantrum, and deny the simple reality that Darwin's theory is a failure.
I don't look for that. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yet I still believe in God, and I am a Christian.

QED.

But if you want to wait for it, I'd suggest holding your breath at the same time.

[KinjaKahn]

I'll clear it up for you if don't understand LSU's post.Try clearing it up for yourself FIRST.

The idea that there is not a good evolutionary explaination for flagella is laughable and demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. ROFL...

Natural selection is scrutinizing the slightest variations rejecting those that are bad and preserving and adding up all those that are good.
This is why we don't have hair covering out bodies right? Most of us anyway.

Simple question simple simon. Which came first the drive shaft, the rotor, the whip, or the 20 some other components of the flagellum? Let me guess... you will say they all evolved at the same time as a fully functioning mechanism for mobility. Natural selection is the magical mindless motive pushing life forward. conveniently its followers are similarly mindless, however well trained/programmed/"educated" they view themselves.

The same way that the folks who say that the eye is too complex to have evolved. It can be domonstrated to have evolved at least 7 independant times in our histroy.
Meanwhile, how does a primitive life form "know" there is light, and there can be a method of perceiving it? I know I know magical accidents of nonsensical mumbo-evolution-jumbo. Save that for the campfire.

Again you ask for proof, again, you offer none of your own. Only hyperbole.
I am waiting for your answer, Which part came first ans why didn't natural selection eliminate it?

[Hotpapa666]

Try clearing it up for yourself FIRST.

ROFL...


This is why we don't have hair covering out bodies right? Most of us anyway.

Simple question simple simon. Which came first the drive shaft, the rotor, the whip, or the 20 some other components of the flagellum? Let me guess... you will say they all evolved at the same time as a fully functioning mechanism for mobility. Natural selection is the magical mindless motive pushing life forward. conveniently its followers are similarly mindless, however well trained/programmed/"educated" they view themselves.


Meanwhile, how does a primitive life form "know" there is light, and there can be a method of perceiving it? I know I know magical accidents of nonsensical mumbo-evolution-jumbo. Save that for the campfire.


I am waiting for your answer, Which part came first ans why didn't natural selection eliminate it?

You are very quick to ridicule something that you obviously don't understand. That isn't a very open minded or mature approach to answering questions.

I don't know your education level, your understanding of microbiology, etc., AND I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I have never studied flagella and don't really know much about their evolution; though I suspect that bacterial flagella contain similar components to those of the Type III transport system. That is not to say that the information is not out there; I'm just not the right source. This looks like an excellent opportunity for you to go to a College Library and do some research.

As for this "Meanwhile, how does a primitive life form "know" there is light, and there can be a method of perceiving it?" You seem to be confusing Darwinism with Lamarkism. Evolution isn't directed by the desires of the organism. There are light sensitive mircoorganism.

[KinjaKahn]

You are very quick to ridicule something that you obviously don't understand. That isn't a very open minded or mature approach to answering questions.

I don't know your education level, your understanding of microbiology, etc., AND I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I have never studied flagella and don't really know much about their evolution; though I suspect that bacterial flagella contain similar components to those of the Type III transport system. That is not to say that the information is not out there; I'm just not the right source. This looks like an excellent opportunity for you to go to a College Library and do some research.

As for this "Meanwhile, how does a primitive life form "know" there is light, and there can be a method of perceiving it?" You seem to be confusing Darwinism with Lamarkism. Evolution isn't directed by the desires of the organism. There are light sensitive mircoorganism.

Good answer. Wanna play checkers on Yahoo?

[Hotpapa666]

Good answer. Wanna play checkers on Yahoo?

Nah. I'm thinking about heading back to sleep. Traveling F-ed up my sleep schedule and I am dragging ass.

[LSU]

You are very quick to ridicule something that you obviously don't understand. That isn't a very open minded or mature approach to answering questions.

I don't know your education level, your understanding of microbiology, etc., AND I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I have never studied flagella and don't really know much about their evolution; though I suspect that bacterial flagella contain similar components to those of the Type III transport system. That is not to say that the information is not out there; I'm just not the right source. This looks like an excellent opportunity for you to go to a College Library and do some research.

As for this "Meanwhile, how does a primitive life form "know" there is light, and there can be a method of perceiving it?" You seem to be confusing Darwinism with Lamarkism. Evolution isn't directed by the desires of the organism. There are light sensitive mircoorganism.

I study type III secretion systems. They're very similar to flagella. Both in structure, how they're constructed, and amino acid sequence of proteins. There's discussion in the field now about which came first, the flagella or the TTSS. I'm not sure myself. Don't really care all that much. Both Gram + and - have flagella, but only Gram - have TTSS. However, Gram + do have other secretion systems, and I'm not all that familiar with them or how they are similar/different to flagella or TTSS. In fact, there are many different types of bacterial secretion (six that I know of right now), and there are at least 3 different types of flagella. Not sure if they're homologous or simply analogous.

Anyway, I think this all is a product of Behe's great "irreducible complexity" argument. Any google search will take one to many sites that discuss it. And, as usual, to many sites that have pretty good info to contradict it, too.

But didn't you know? Giraffes have long necks because they stretched them while getting leaves out of tall trees.

[KinjaKahn]

I study type III secretion systems. They're very similar to flagella. Both in structure, how they're constructed, and amino acid sequence of proteins. There's discussion in the field now about which came first, the flagella or the TTSS. I'm not sure myself. Don't really care all that much. Both Gram + and - have flagella, but only Gram - have TTSS. However, Gram + do have other secretion systems, and I'm not all that familiar with them or how they are similar/different to flagella or TTSS. In fact, there are many different types of bacterial secretion (six that I know of right now), and there are at least 3 different types of flagella. Not sure if they're homologous or simply analogous.

Anyway, I think this all is a product of Behe's great "irreducible complexity" argument. Any google search will take one to many sites that discuss it. And, as usual, to many sites that have pretty good info to contradict it, too.

But didn't you know? Giraffes have long necks because they stretched them while getting leaves out of tall trees.

Meanwhile... the line between facts and beliefs is smeared intentionally by the sorcerers of math and matter.

[LSU]

Meanwhile... the line between facts and beliefs is smeared intentionally by the sorcerers of math and matter.

and by Kinja.

[KinjaKahn]

and by Kinja.

Just gimme the facts... not the "well we think evolution is better than Jesus" song and dance. Oh wait... Evolution isn't fact it's "our best guess that leaves us looking smart and furthers our federal funding/welfare".

[LSU]

Just gimme the facts... not the "well we think evolution is better than Jesus" song and dance. Oh wait... Evolution isn't fact it's "our best guess that leaves us looking smart and furthers our federal funding/welfare".


You'll have to look elsewhere for the "better than Jesus" discussion, but I know that you always want to push it that way.


Fact is, I'd LOVE to have a conversation about it. But it's never a conversation. Just more of the same song and dance, as you put it.

Meanwhile... the line between facts and beliefs is smeared intentionally by the sorcerers of math and matter.

So why should I put forth any fucking effort to find even the slightest topic of conversation when it just goes into a complete clusterfuck?

So, I don't.

I just sit and snicker about all the biology you know. Or think you know.

[Hotpapa666]

I study type III secretion systems. They're very similar to flagella. Both in structure, how they're constructed, and amino acid sequence of proteins. There's discussion in the field now about which came first, the flagella or the TTSS. I'm not sure myself. Don't really care all that much. Both Gram + and - have flagella, but only Gram - have TTSS. However, Gram + do have other secretion systems, and I'm not all that familiar with them or how they are similar/different to flagella or TTSS. In fact, there are many different types of bacterial secretion (six that I know of right now), and there are at least 3 different types of flagella. Not sure if they're homologous or simply analogous.

Anyway, I think this all is a product of Behe's great "irreducible complexity" argument. Any google search will take one to many sites that discuss it. And, as usual, to many sites that have pretty good info to contradict it, too.

But didn't you know? Giraffes have long necks because they stretched them while getting leaves out of tall trees.


Cool. I worked in a lab that dealt mainly with secretion in a gram positive.

I'll pole around on some of the sites on Behe. I'll try my damnedist, but I might have a hard time reading much based on the first PP I've read so far.

[LSU]

Cool. I worked in a lab that dealt mainly with secretion in a gram positive.

I'll pole around on some of the sites on Behe. I'll try my damnedist, but I might have a hard time reading much based on the first PP I've read so far.


Type IIIs are pretty sweet. Direct conduit from cytoplasm of bacteria to cytoplasm of host cell. Don't have to deal with general secretion pathway, and it's going right into the host. They liken it to a syringe. And all the functions...modulate host immune response, control intracellular trafficking, induce cell uptake, inhibit cell uptake, attachment to cells, etc.

Lots of different functions. All mediated by the proteins that are secreted, which differ from species to species. The main apparatus is pretty well conserved, though. The part that "looks" like a flagellum, that is.

[KinjaKahn]

You'll have to look elsewhere for the "better than Jesus" discussion, but I know that you always want to push it that way.
So did God create man or did he evolve from single cell life form?


Fact is, I'd LOVE to have a conversation about it. But it's never a conversation. Just more of the same song and dance, as you put it.
A conversation would be nice, but you cannot let go of the hacked, patched and fabricated "science" that's been ingrained into your since childhood.


So why should I put forth any fucking effort to find even the slightest topic of conversation when it just goes into a complete clusterfuck?

So, I don't.
You can't. A simply fact you cant grasp.
I just sit and snicker about all the biology you know. Or think you know.

Fantastic... So how about you push forth a link that shows "science" creating biological life, from which there was none, and prove how much "biology" your whole INDUSTRY really KNOWS?

I snicker as well, at a bunch of lab coat wearing fools sitting around masturbating their egos to ideas which they have nothing but guesses about, based on looking at shit they don't fucking have a clue about, then conclude by just making shit up to fit the observation, call it fact and push it into the library and hope they die before its disproved.

Meanwhile every other month these biochem brainiacs recall some of their biochemical dope they coined as break through medicine to monetarily rape then kill the sick, while offering false hopes of cure while knowing full well they are in it to manage and prolong illness, and minting billions on top of federally funded billions.

[Hotpapa666]

So did God create man or did he evolve from single cell life form?



A conversation would be nice, but you cannot let go of the hacked, patched and fabricated "science" that's been ingrained into your since childhood.



You can't. A simply fact you cant grasp.


Fantastic... So how about you push forth a link that shows "science" creating biological life, from which there was none, and prove how much "biology" your whole INDUSTRY really KNOWS?

I snicker as well, at a bunch of lab coat wearing fools sitting around masturbating their egos to ideas which they have nothing but guesses about, based on looking at shit they don't fucking have a clue about, then conclude by just making shit up to fit the observation, call it fact and push it into the library and hope they die before its disproved.

Meanwhile every other month these biochem brainiacs recall some of their biochemical dope they coined as break through medicine to monetarily rape then kill the sick, while offering false hopes of cure while knowing full well they are in it to manage and prolong illness, and minting billions on top of federally funded billions.


More drivel from you. You certainly aren't shy about showing how little you know about science and scientists.

[LSU]

So did God create man or did he evolve from single cell life form?


Perhaps both happened. Perhaps neither happened.


A conversation would be nice, but you cannot let go of the hacked, patched and fabricated "science" that's been ingrained into your since childhood.

Dismissing my views as you just have pretty much gives me every reason to not join in the conversation with you, don't you think. Doesn't quite sound like a "discussion" to me.



You can't. A simply fact you cant grasp.

Great discussion.


Fantastic... So how about you push forth a link that shows "science" creating biological life, from which there was none, and prove how much "biology" your whole INDUSTRY really KNOWS?

Science didn't "create" biological life. If just puts forth a potential explanation. Again, great discussion.



I snicker as well, at a bunch of lab coat wearing fools sitting around masturbating their egos to ideas which they have nothing but guesses about, based on looking at shit they don't fucking have a clue about, then conclude by just making shit up to fit the observation, call it fact and push it into the library and hope they die before its disproved.

I don't wear a lab coat most of the time. But yeah, it's amazing why I avoid these great discussions. Not to mention the above is completely asinine bullshit. Complete. That is definitely a fact.

Meanwhile every other month these biochem brainiacs recall some of their biochemical dope they coined as break through medicine to monetarily rape then kill the sick, while offering false hopes of cure while knowing full well they are in it to manage and prolong illness, and minting billions on top of federally funded billions.

Don't take you pent up agression against big pharma out on me. I don't work for them, and if you pay any sort of attention (which I usually assume you don't), you'll know I don't plan on it either.

But yeah, great discussion.




If they dont throw temper tantrums they sweat, act dismissive and laugh hysterically. Meanwhile... reality trudges on.


This is where it always ends... instead of temper tantrums stomping feet and wailing... its aversion.


http://mindfad.com/boards/lmao_einstein.jpg

[LSU]

Meanwhile every other month these biochem brainiacs recall some of their biochemical dope they coined as break through medicine to monetarily rape then kill the sick, while offering false hopes of cure while knowing full well they are in it to manage and prolong illness, and minting billions on top of federally funded billions.


Really, you should talk to Ed Who about this. He's the chemist, not me.

[KinjaKahn]

Really, you should talk to Ed Who about this. He's the chemist, not me.
My fight isn't with you, just your implied belief that evolution is real.

[KinjaKahn]

More drivel from you. You certainly aren't shy about showing how little you know about science and scientists.
ROFL... How little science knows about science... Oh wait cant a new discovery bitch slap science into nonsense at any moment? Think slow... check what you believe are the FACTS.... before answering....

[Hotpapa666]

Well, I've been poking around in Irreducible Complexity. What a myopic theory. Behe is a biochemist who seems to have forgotten all of the science that he has learned to create a concept which fits his religion.

[Hotpapa666]

ROFL... How little science knows about science... Oh wait cant a new discovery bitch slap science into nonsense at any moment? Think slow... check what you believe are the FACTS.... before answering....

Where did you learn that spewing inane venom constituted a discussion?

[KinjaKahn]

Where did you learn that spewing inane venom constituted a discussion?
Whining about diction doesn't answer questions.

[LSU]

My fight isn't with you, just your implied belief that evolution is real.



Here's the thing about my "belief". While I believe it to be the most founded theory out there for speciation, I also fully understand it is possible that it is completely wrong. Can you say the same?

And when I put forth an argument for evolution, it is simply how I rationalize that the theory is supported. Not proven, which is where you always try to steer the conversation.

But explain to me the logic of why I should even partake in any discussion with you? When I do, you explicitly state everything is made up and nothing but a conspiracy to denounce God and to fill our pockets with money.

That's not a fucking discussion. That's aversion and avoiding the discussion at best. At worst, it's simply being a pompous, childish asshole.

And when I see it, I'll respond in kind.

We've been over this before many times. For you to stomp your feet and bitch about the conversation is ridiculous when you intend for it to go nowhere in the first place.

[Hotpapa666]

Whining about diction doesn't answer questions.

But bitching and screaming does? I think I've just about figured you Kinja and there ain't much there.

[KinjaKahn]

Here's the thing about my "belief". While I believe it to be the most founded theory out there for speciation, I also fully understand it is possible that it is completely wrong. Can you say the same?

And when I put forth an argument for evolution, it is simply how I rationalize that the theory is supported. Not proven, which is where you always try to steer the conversation.

But explain to me the logic of why I should even partake in any discussion with you? When I do, you explicitly state everything is made up and nothing but a conspiracy to denounce God and to fill our pockets with money.

That's not a fucking discussion. That's aversion and avoiding the discussion at best. At worst, it's simply being a pompous, childish asshole.

And when I see it, I'll respond in kind.

We've been over this before many times. For you to stomp your feet and bitch about the conversation is ridiculous when you intend for it to go nowhere in the first place.

Thanks. All I ever wanted out of all this is the honesty about Evolution being a belief. Likewise for the Big Bang. Sometimes I do go pretty far off center to prove a point. I just felt you were intentionally avoiding saying evolution is a belief, I never set out to fight against science.

[LSU]

Thanks. All I ever wanted out of all this is the honesty about Evolution being a belief. Likewise for the Big Bang. Sometimes I do go pretty far off center to prove a point. I just felt you were intentionally avoiding saying evolution is a belief, I never set out to fight against science.

And that would be fucking bullshit all along the way.

Never in anything I've ever posted here have I said evolution or big bang are concrete fact. And how many threads have we had about it? How many times to I have to say it?

It's the same shit every time the argument comes up, though, steering the discussion towards the evolutionist having to "prove" evolution or conversation over!

That's why it's so asinine for me to even attempt to put forth a rational discussion point. You'd get a lot more candid answers from me (and maybe others) by not ALWAYS steering the frickin' thread to an extreme. Any conversation I've had with YOM, MTVike, Dom, or others on this topic should be proof enough.

But if you or anyone is going to come at me with fire and venom, you can take your inquiring mind and shove it.

[LSU]

Now, onto evolution simply being a belief. That's also complete bullshit. A scientific theory is more than a "belief". It is founded in vast amounts of data. Referring to it simply as a "belief" shows a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Just because it is not proven (as in a scientific Law) does not relegate it to simply a belief or unsupported concept. If anything, that would be a hypothesis. Which evolution is much more than.

[KinjaKahn]

And that would be fucking bullshit all along the way.

Never in anything I've ever posted here have I said evolution or big bang are concrete fact. And how many threads have we had about it? How many times to I have to say it?

It's the same shit every time the argument comes up, though, steering the discussion towards the evolutionist having to "prove" evolution or conversation over!

That's why it's so asinine for me to even attempt to put forth a rational discussion point. You'd get a lot more candid answers from me (and maybe others) by not ALWAYS steering the frickin' thread to an extreme. Any conversation I've had with YOM, MTVike, Dom, or others on this topic should be proof enough.

But if you or anyone is going to come at me with fire and venom, you can take your inquiring mind and shove it.

Perhaps I confuse some of your musings with those of hotpapa666, I will try harder to keep a line between you two.

[LSU]

Perhaps I confuse some of your musings with those of hotpapa666, I will try harder to keep a line between you two.



Unbelievable.

[KinjaKahn]

Now, onto evolution simply being a belief. That's also complete bullshit. A scientific theory is more than a "belief". It is founded in vast amounts of data. Referring to it simply as a "belief" shows a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Just because it is not proven (as in a scientific Law) does not relegate it to simply a belief or unsupported concept. If anything, that would be a hypothesis. Which evolution is much more than.

Sorry, It is a choice to believe in evolution. It is established that evolution is not a settled idea, do you not trust that evolution is true? If you do trust evolution to be true it is by definition a belief.

[KinjaKahn]

Unbelievable.

Sad but true, I mix up pnkpanther and hannitykillspuppies too.

[LSU]

Sorry, It is a choice to believe in evolution. It is established that evolution is not a settled idea, do you not trust that evolution is true? If you do trust evolution to be true it is by definition a belief.


Yes, it is a choice. A choice to accept that there is annals of data supporting evolution (and some that does not support certain aspects of it, but that's for a different discussion).

Honestly, I don't see it as a belief. I see it as the way it is. If you say I believe in it, that's your standards put on me by you, not on me myself. So it comes down to semantics in the way the question is asked.

"Do you believe that evolution is true?"

"Yes."

"So you admit it's a belief!"

"What, no, not really, that's just how you asked the question."

"Well, if it's not a belief, why do you say you believe it?"

"Because of the mountains of scientific evidence that support it."

"But it isn't definite proof?"

"No."

"So it's a belief!"

"Ugh."



Essentially, I can't say that I believe or disbelieve evolutionary theory (all of it...there's a bunch there), but I can say that I believe that the amount of scientific evidence supporting it provides a pretty good base for its foundation.

Science tries to explain what is or what isn't. Belief has little to do with it.

You believe the evidence or you don't. Not really the theory or law.

To be truthful, I'm not even completely convinced that laws are absolute either. That's a restriction of God and/or nature that is constructed by man's knowledge which is obviously incomplete.

So the limitation to anything will always be man's knowledge, or lack thereof.


So, I believe the evidence that supports evolution. I also believe evidence that can cast questions upon evolution. But evolutionary theory is made up of so many components, you'd have to destroy every one of them before you destroy "evolution."

Evolution simply states that over time, there are changes in allele frequency.

Darwin wrote "the origin of species" not "the origin of life". Biogenesis falls into evolution, as does symbiotic theory, and all the other things. If it were proven that life did not start from non-life, that wouldn't destroy evolution if that life still evolved, it would just cast doubt on biogenesis theories.

It's not a simple topic.

[LSU]

Sad but true, I mix up pnkpanther and hannitykillspuppies too.



Considering that I'm usually the one leading the post count in scientific (specifically evolution) topics, and I've been here since nearly day 1 and continually express my viewpoint, I still don't see how my basic ideas get confused with someone else's...unless you're just not really paying attention to the words and just attacking the concept. Which takes me back to the point of getting involved in that "discussion".

[Hotpapa666]

Yes, it is a choice. A choice to accept that there is annals of data supporting evolution (and some that does not support certain aspects of it, but that's for a different discussion).

Honestly, I don't see it as a belief. I see it as the way it is. If you say I believe in it, that's your standards put on me by you, not on me myself. So it comes down to semantics in the way the question is asked.

"Do you believe that evolution is true?"

"Yes."

"So you admit it's a belief!"

"What, no, not really, that's just how you asked the question."

"Well, if it's not a belief, why do you say you believe it?"

"Because of the mountains of scientific evidence that support it."

"But it isn't definite proof?"

"No."

"So it's a belief!"

"Ugh."



Essentially, I can't say that I believe or disbelieve evolutionary theory (all of it...there's a bunch there), but I can say that I believe that the amount of scientific evidence supporting it provides a pretty good base for its foundation.

Science tries to explain what is or what isn't. Belief has little to do with it.

You believe the evidence or you don't. Not really the theory or law.

To be truthful, I'm not even completely convinced that laws are absolute either. That's a restriction of God and/or nature that is constructed by man's knowledge which is obviously incomplete.

So the limitation to anything will always be man's knowledge, or lack thereof.


So, I believe the evidence that supports evolution. I also believe evidence that can cast questions upon evolution. But evolutionary theory is made up of so many components, you'd have to destroy every one of them before you destroy "evolution."

Evolution simply states that over time, there are changes in allele frequency.

Darwin wrote "the origin of species" not "the origin of life". Biogenesis falls into evolution, as does symbiotic theory, and all the other things. If it were proven that life did not start from non-life, that wouldn't destroy evolution if that life still evolved, it would just cast doubt on biogenesis theories.

It's not a simple topic.

A pretty good summary of how the topic is handled around here. I think there could be some pretty interesting nuts and bolts discussions on the topic; there are some pretty bright people around here. Oh well.

[LSU]

A pretty good summary of how the topic is handled around here. I think there could be some pretty interesting nuts and bolts discussions on the topic; there are some pretty bright people around here. Oh well.


I LOVE the discussions. It makes me think better about stuff I'm doing, which isn't related to evolution one iota.

The point where it breaks down is when anti-evolutionists push the argument towards what evolution doesn't say and ask for evidence of something it doesn't say. Or when people take a passage of Darwin's or any other scientist out of context to try to prove their point.

I'm completely fine with anyone not thinking evolution has any merit. Perfectly fine. And for whatever reason they choose to reject it is fine with me. But for there sake and understanding, I prefer that they reject statements that are made by evolution, not statements that aren't made by evolution.

The 2 that come to mind instantly are

1) "It's ridiculous to think man came from a monkey."

and

2) "If man evolved from monkeys, why are their monkeys still around?"

and

3) "If evolution only selects for desirable traits, why are there undesirable traits (e.g., Down's Syndrome)?"


Yes, I know 3 is not 2. Consider it a bonus.


I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. That's up to themselves. I'm just trying to make sure people know what they're not believing. Not a misconception of it.

[KinjaKahn]

A pretty good summary of how the topic is handled around here. I think there could be some pretty interesting nuts and bolts discussions on the topic; there are some pretty bright people around here. Oh well.
Spare me... Hotpaparandomnumber666

[LSU]

A pretty good summary of how the topic is handled around here. I think there could be some pretty interesting nuts and bolts discussions on the topic; there are some pretty bright people around here. Oh well.


To be honest, the topic of evolution is handled almost respectfully as the topic of Christianity.

[KinjaKahn]

To be honest, the topic of evolution is handled almost respectfully as the topic of Christianity.
Could you fix this?

[LSU]

Could you fix this?


Perhaps you can show me where I've been disrespectful or belligerent without provocation, and I can attempt to refrain from such action in the future.

If you think I have, you may find yourself again having had confused words of people. But if I'm wrong, I'd like to see it and set the record straight.

Because I can only fix what I do.

[KinjaKahn]

Could you rephrase it?

[Hotpapa666]

I LOVE the discussions. It makes me think better about stuff I'm doing, which isn't related to evolution one iota.

The point where it breaks down is when anti-evolutionists push the argument towards what evolution doesn't say and ask for evidence of something it doesn't say. Or when people take a passage of Darwin's or any other scientist out of context to try to prove their point.

I'm completely fine with anyone not thinking evolution has any merit. Perfectly fine. And for whatever reason they choose to reject it is fine with me. But for there sake and understanding, I prefer that they reject statements that are made by evolution, not statements that aren't made by evolution.

The 2 that come to mind instantly are

1) "It's ridiculous to think man came from a monkey."

and

2) "If man evolved from monkeys, why are their monkeys still around?"

and

3) "If evolution only selects for desirable traits, why are there undesirable traits (e.g., Down's Syndrome)?"


Yes, I know 3 is not 2. Consider it a bonus.


I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. That's up to themselves. I'm just trying to make sure people know what they're not believing. Not a misconception of it.

I agree.

Just to pile on, the thing that bugs me is when people knock Evolution out of hand, as rediculous. Go after the data, the methods or the conclusion, with well reasoned arguments. That is how reasonable discuss proceeds.

[Hotpapa666]

To be honest, the topic of evolution is handled almost respectfully as the topic of Christianity.

This is a shot at me isn't it? Insert emoticon). In my defense, I try to keep the discussion on it's merits, not personal.

[LSU]

Could you rephrase it?



what?

[LSU]

This is a shot at me isn't it? Insert emoticon). In my defense, I try to keep the discussion on it's merits, not personal.


Faith is personal. But I get what you're saying, but it doesn't always come across that way.

I'm taking that as you mean philosophical discussions, but I could be wrong.

"Evidence of 'god'" kinda strays from a philosophical basis, though.

[Hotpapa666]

Faith is personal. But I get what you're saying, but it doesn't always come across that way.

I'm taking that as you mean philosophical discussions, but I could be wrong.

"Evidence of 'god'" kinda strays from a philosophical basis, though.

Yeah, that thread was inspired by the "prove evolution" arguments. We've had this discussion already so I won't bring it back up here.

As for faith, if it IS personal and STAYS personal I have absolutely no problem with it. When it enters the public sphere I begin to have a problem and criticizing it is fair game.

[fahvra]

kinja is the mattcoach of partisanpatriot.

[domenick2x]

Spare me... Hotpaparandomnumber666
Whoot!

Glad I got a mention in there.

Back to the evolution topic - the fact that some people are looking for holes actually helps the theory - if it's going to be a Law, it needs to be bulletproof. By simply accepting the theory and moving on, we don't get through all the details that might give us insight into deeper issues.

But that doesn't invalidate the theory. I consider evolution to be a 'work in progress'. However, I also think that it's a pretty good fit for what is. (That's one of the things that pisses me off about Global Warming theory - I don't think it's proven, so no need to attack those who don't 'believe'.)

Easy enough to run a parallel to classical mechanics. Newton wrote the book on it with his laws of motion. It wasn't until Einstein came along that added to those equations that dealt with extremely high velocities. Are we now at the end of that line of reasoning? Probably not. Einstein predicted a lot of things that have been shown (relativistic interactions, black holes, etc) to be true. But I don't think we know all that we could know about that.

[giddyup4]

What is the driving force of life?

[giddyup4]

Whoot!

Glad I got a mention in there.

Back to the evolution topic - the fact that some people are looking for holes actually helps the theory - if it's going to be a Law, it needs to be bulletproof. By simply accepting the theory and moving on, we don't get through all the details that might give us insight into deeper issues.

But that doesn't invalidate the theory. I consider evolution to be a 'work in progress'. However, I also think that it's a pretty good fit for what is. (That's one of the things that pisses me off about Global Warming theory - I don't think it's proven, so no need to attack those who don't 'believe'.)

Easy enough to run a parallel to classical mechanics. Newton wrote the book on it with his laws of motion. It wasn't until Einstein came along that added to those equations that dealt with extremely high velocities. Are we now at the end of that line of reasoning? Probably not. Einstein predicted a lot of things that have been shown (relativistic interactions, black holes, etc) to be true. But I don't think we know all that we could know about that.

Isnt there evidence of it though?

[domenick2x]

Isnt there evidence of it though?
Sure. My issue isn't with the data that supports it - my issue is that there's data that also doesn't support it, and if you question GLOBAL WARMING, you get called a flat-earther or a Republican Apologist.

Science should be about getting the right answers, not about attacking those who don't agree with you.

This is where Science differs from Religion. Religion is about belief, Science isn't (or, in it's purest form, shouldn't be).

[Roy Munson]

What is the driving force of life?
Money? Power? boobs?

[fahvra]

What is the driving force of life?


Success

[Jiddy78]

kinja is the mattcoach of partisanpatriot.

Wow...That's a really really dig up the bottom of the underwear drawer joke...but I still get it...

[Jiddy78]

Evolution is still a theory, right?

I don't understand how someone that subscribes to a "theory" is not partaking in a belief.

Just my opinion.

[Jiddy78]

What is the driving force of life?

Hookers, booze and granite.

[giddyup4]

Money? Power? boobs?

Success

Hookers, booze and granite.


Good answers fellas. I KNEW I could count on an intelligent reply. :rolleyes:

[Roy Munson]

Good answers fellas. I KNEW I could count on an intelligent reply. :rolleyes:
the quest for boobs doesn't drive your life?

[Jiddy78]

Good answers fellas. I KNEW I could count on an intelligent reply. :rolleyes:

I just added "not caring about what others think about what I choose to post" to one of my driving force of life parameters.

[Roy Munson]

I just added "not caring about what others think about what I choose to post" to one of my driving force of life parameters.
post != care?

[Jiddy78]

post != care?

I care about not caring what he thinks. It's important to me.

[Roy Munson]

I care about not caring what he thinks. It's important to me.
every life needs a purpose.