Against Ben Stein's wishes, lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island
Marilyn Terrell says: "Lizards evolve 'overnight' on Croatian island.
LinkItalian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.
In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.
Wow, that ol' Intelligent Designer sure keeps hisself busy.
And how can we be sure this is actually "evolution", and not, say, a change of diet?
What do you mean by evolution?
Micro evolution, which is change within the species or aka adaptability. Like already having guts, a head and the knowledge of how to bite. No new information just variations with the information already there. This is viewed all the time and is a sign of good design. Like heat and air conditioning in my car I am prepared to adjust to where I am.
While macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. This has never been seen and belongs in the faith not science category.
I agree with Acejohnny. If you eat enough Taco Bell I guarantee you will develop the features listed above.
#3: That's not evidence. It's mental illness.
So wait a minute, these lizards have learned how to make air conditioners?
#3: I challenge you to tell me what keeps microevolution from piling up and becoming macroevolution. Where would you draw the line between these two categories of evolutionary change? Evolutionary biologists realize there is no dividing line. As the saying goes, believing in microevolution but not macroevolution is like believing in inches but not miles.
Evidence: What do you mean by evolution?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/Guysmiley777/Evolution2.jpg
"It's Just a Completely Pre-Existing Alimentary Canal with Minor Changes," ISBN 83673463-1034.
According to the article the lizards' digestive system formed new structures to allow it to better digest plants. That seems more substantial than just saying they changed their diet as alluded to above. They are able to have a different diet because of the change.
Unsurprisingly, #3's definitions are sufficiently full of vague terms that they can be used to deny evolution no matter what evidence is presented.
And because they've made a deep commitment to becoming a better them.
Big frown on the unnecessary Ben Stein slam. :(
No silly rabbit they can't make air conditioners because they are and have always been lizards.
See Ben Stein's movie and hear Richard Dawkins say aliens put us here. Someone should tell him that that is a form of intelligent design.
This is not evolution. This is adaptation.
When you show me an animal that has transitioned from one species to another, then we can talk about evolution. Until then, evolution is just as much a religion as any other.
#2:
"Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.
"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."
This doesn't sound like changes attributed to just eating different food over the course of a single lifespan...
That said, the researcher noted that they still hadn't done the genetic testing to confirm that the changes were genetic.
Big smile on the unnecessary Ben Stein slam. :D
@3-
"This has never been seen" Except in the fossil record. But then again, JHVH could have just put those there to trick us, because He has been known to be a big fan of the psych out. You can interpret the fossil record any way you want, but I'm going to side with the scientists who've devoted their lives to studying it, rather than the theologians who've devoted their lives to ignoring it.
In regard to "new information," see one of those scientists' analysis of the "information" problem. Also, see Dawkins' explanation of how evolution can increase complexity (going from skin to a functioning eye).
James: Big frown on the unnecessary Ben Stein slam. :(
After being involved with the travesty that is Expelled, I don't think there is such a thing as an unnecessary slam on Ben Stein.
I would say true evolution would be the change of one species into another species. Dog to a cat.
"While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design"
Ha ha! I get it.
Personally, I see the whole basis of the evolution 'problem' to have nothing to do with the science at all. There's simply too much to lose, biblically if the Garden of Eden is a Creation Myth and not hard fact. If that tale is in fact an allegory, then Original Sin is out the window!
Original Sin is the ultimate marketing tool; you can walk up to a pillar of virtue and tell him he's a sinner because of Eve. Original Sin means EVERYONE needs your product! Original Sin is why Jesus' 'sacrifice' means anything at all! It's the core of Catholic guilt and evangelical recruiting, and it's the single reason why so many people aren't cool with "Well, what if God just created evolution?" If that were true, it'd still be doubtful there was ever an Eden, an apple, or a serpent.
And of course, without the Eden myth, you lose the primary Christian justification for oppressing women! If Eve wasn't made from Man, then she's not 'woman,' literally 'of man.' Man may have come from a woman, just like the 3.3 billion other men on this earth. And since there may not have been an Eve to eat the apple, it wasn't a woman that made the virtuous man 'fall.' No more biblical justification to treat women badly, keep them from the priesthood, etc. etc.
Darwin doesn't matter for beans compared to the Christian marketing and control schemes that stand to be lost.
Poster Evidence is 100% wrong. If a change in the population is due to a changing gene pool, that's evolution. And unless he wants to present a definition of "information" and then calculate the amount of information present in the ten ancestors and then compare it to the present population's genes, his "no new information" line of argument is at best an unsupported assertion and at worst a credulous repetition of a long-debunked creationist claim.
As for macro-evolution, we have several examples of directly-observed speciation. More to the point, we have a great deal of evidence for prior speciation from sources such as the fossil record or our own chromosomes. The notion that macro-evolution is taken on faith not only isn't true, but it's blatant projection.
"The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown"
and
"The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses"
They were probably able to interbreed with one or more of the native species, and wound up getting some new traits that had already evolved on the island long ago. The territorial tendencies in the wall lizards probably evolved due to competition for food in Italy, and the native lizards couldn't cope. Only their gut features live on.... I mean 30 generations to get wholly new features de novo? Those lizards smell fishy to me.
The lizards are originally from Italy, right across the Adriatic. It's what, 100 miles? Maybe 200? The native island lizards and the wall lizards are very likely to have been siblings, phylogenetically speaking.
Evolution *is* adaptation. Evolution is *not* a Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing his hand down from inside a cloud, pointing, and saying, "ZOT!!!"
Big smile on the completely necessary Ben Stein bitchslap! :)
Tom Cruise's opinion of this thread:
"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with BoingBoing. And when I started studying the history of BoingBoing, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in BoingBoing."
\Hail Xenu!
The fossil record shows no transitional forms Darwin himself said this would disprove his theory.
Developing a muscle is called exercise #16.
Well to be fair to Ben Stein, it is not the bit about things changing over time that really gets him all boiled up inside. It is more the bit that things probably started on this world from things randomly coming together, rather than that God thing (or aliens for that matter) seeding life.
#15, Ericthegeek,
"This is not evolution. This is adaptation."
Let me just probe to find out exactly which part you have trouble with:
1) Do you think that the changes to the lizards' digestive system could be passed on to the lizards' offspring? (In this case, they haven't conformed that, but I'm just asking if you think it's possible)
2) Do you think that other adaptations could be passed to the lizards' offspring?
3) Do you think that, on the assumption (see 1) that the changes to the lizard's digestive system were genetic, there could also eventually be changes to the lizards' reproductive organs?
4) Do you think that the changes in 3) could ever be enough to prevent the lizards from mating with another breed of lizard?
5) Do you agree that one basic definition of "different species" is the inability to breed with members of the other group?
@15 - "show me an animal that has transitioned from one species to another"
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
@20 - Then you don't understand how evolution works. How about this guy turning into dogs and cats?
Contrary to what some posters here believe, speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild. More details at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html .
All known mechanisms of evolution work on time frames longer than the human lifespan, so personally witnessing a major change in your lifetime is extremely unlikely. However, by examining the fossil record we can observe that such changes have occurred in the past, as predicted by evolution.
#20: Just because that's what you'd say "true evolution" is doesn't make it so.
Well to be fair to Ben Stein, it is not the bit about things changing over time that really gets him all boiled up inside. It is more the bit that things probably started on this world from things randomly coming together, rather than that God thing (or aliens for that matter) seeding life.
The theory of evolution makes absolutely no claim to how life started. Zero. Nada. None. It's the theory of evolution not the theory of biogenesis.
So, no, I'd rather not "be fair" to BS.
"While macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. This has never been seen and belongs in the faith not science category."
"The fossil record shows no transitional forms Darwin himself said this would disprove his theory."
another nickel... one more...
THERE!
I now have a million dollars in nickels. Thanks!
@#17: Touche.
@#19: I haven't seen the movie yet, but I really want to. The ads make it seem like it's just a documentary about teachers getting fired for religious beliefs.. but the internet reaction is that it's some insane rant preaching creationism. I wanna see who's right.
..but yeah, this could have been a really nifty post about some super sweet science find. but that headline just reads "Ben Stein is a crazy old man and you are a fool for believing in a higher power; Also: Lizards."
So: frown. :(
Meh. That's nothing. You should see the mutations of the Italian wall lizards living in the NYC sewers!
It doesn't say "You are a fool for believing in a higher power." You came up with that one on your own.
However, I'm not one to question your beliefs!
#27
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
@Evidence and others,
Your saying that only demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. It's just as silly as saying that people came from monkeys... Rather, evolution shows us that dogs and cats (or people and monkeys for that matter) had a common ancestor. A dog will never become a cat. However, given enough time, a change of environment and maybe some gamma radiation - it's ancestors will become something other then a dog.
Yes everyone, it takes a very long time for a complex organism to evolve. If you don't trust the fossil record, why not instead look at simpler organisms. Viruses and bacteria are readily evolving.
@27-
"The fossil record shows no transitional forms"
Well, actually it does, but that's beside the point.
If I showed you a picture of myself at 6, and then a picture of myself at 9, would you assume that they were pictures of two distinct individuals, because you never saw the pictures of me at 7 and 8? If I showed you the pictures of me at 7 and 8, would you assume you were looking at 4 different individuals, because you don't see pictures from 6.5, 7.5, and 8.5?
@Comstock: sexual reproduction, obviously :-)
By mixing up the genes, it keeps microevolution elastic, able to respond to short-term changes then spring back to the long-term-viable norm. With such a small population, it doesn't really work, so macroevolution gets a chance. Usually, of course, it heads straight down the drain; but it doesn't have to work often.
Here is my question, and it mostly shows a position of ignorance, I am not a biologist.
How does a major enugh mutation to be considered evolution not leave the animal sterile like a mule? I seem to remember this mule-ness was part of genetic error control. I also seem to remember all mutations being recessive, where do dominant traits come from then?
Creation-evolution arguments aside, it's pretty amazing stuff and i'm hoping they "devolve" to dino size.
All hail wall crawling lizard lords!
The fossil record shows us that a lot of animals died in a flood and are buried around the world.
Examine the evidence prepare yourself for your judgement coming.
He promised before and left evidence everywhere(Noah's flood-fossils-oil...), it is coming again and you know it.
Thats why you love science that changes what it knows from year to year.
Repent and cry out for Jesus to save you because the flying spaghetti monsters noodly appendage is to short to save you.
Examine yourself with the ten commandments.
Ever lied? Stolen? Coveted? Blasphemed God?
If so you need to repent and trust Jesus today.
I, for one, welcome our rapidly evolving lizard masters.
James: A belief in a higher power is much different from a belief in creationism. There are millions of thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable people who are religious and still readily accept that all the evidence points to evolution.
Being a creationist is not an act of faith. It is an active denial of the evidence all around you, and an active refusal to engage yourself with knowledge and exploration of the world God made (for the sake of argument).
Suggesting that God placed evidence of an ongoing and ancient process all around us while reassuring us it’s all meaningless next to some folktales is nothing short of madness. It’s akin to jumping off a bridge because the Bible doesn’t say anything about gravity.
Actually, Evidence, God created the rainbow as a promise that a Great Flood would never come again. Genesis 9:13, pally.
@44-
Another creationist shows his/her true colors. You guys can have Heaven all to yourself if you just leave Earth to the rest of us heathens.
#40 G.park It was still you, you didn't evolve you aged.
We had a common ancestor? Man and apes?
I believe we had a common ancestor = Adam not an ape.
Believing we had an common ancestor means you belive well all came from a rock that was rained on for millions of years.
More faith than I have.
A:
Yes, it's evolution.
B:
Yes, the slam on Ben Stein was entirely necessary. People learn to censure themselves through shame or guilt. Ben Stein's sense of guilt was replaced before he entered the service of Nixon. he also has no shame. The final function is to warn others - which BoingBoing is very good at doing.
C:
There is no difference between macro-evolution, micro-evolution, and just plain old evolution. Anyone who makes noise about "no new information", "no new traits", "there has to be a transition to a new species - cat to dog" "evolution is a religion", are lying, outright.
D:
#27! Yes, Darwin did say that a lack of transitional fossils would disprove his theory! Right after that he says, in essence: "So thank goodness we have this mountain of transitional fossils in the record!"
Either you're a liar, intentionally trying to mislead readers as to what evolution is and the evidence for it - or you are completely ignorant of the subject and lack qualification to discuss it.
True evolution would be if these lizards started selling insurance...
And #44 lies once again, and demonstrates that he is in fact Lying for Jesus™.
"Repent and cry out for Jesus to save you because the flying spaghetti monsters noodly appendage is to short to save you."
Okay, now I'm wodering if this Evidence person simply has an ironic sense of humour which is not easily detected in text form.
This is a testament to the failure of high school science teachers throughout the English speaking world. Reproducible advantageous mutation is happening every minute of every day. If you don't think that evolution transpires in a brief time frame, let me introduce you to my friends, the micro-organisms. Any life form that reproduces rapidly has the potential to evolve rapidly. A major change in living conditions could give an advantage to a recessive trait and wipe out a dominant one in a couple of generations.
What's with all the creationist ma-roons here today?
You're woefully misinformed if you think:
- "Darwinism" is the same as evolution.
- that evolution takes any position on abiogenesis.
- that "species" is anything but a mental box we put things in that say little about the nature of critters. (Look up "ring species" for a pathological case.)
- that there are any compelling alternatives to what evolution explains.
- that there are any scientific alternatives to what evolution explains.
- that your anti-evolution propaganda machine is telling you the truth, re: transitional fossils, macroevolution, the nature of science, or what repsected scientists say about any of those.
- that creationism has done anything but Flunked its scientific tests. (It's not expulsion if you fail out.)
The only unfortunate thing about this headline is that it is kookbait. Kooks!
@rebdav,
A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse Although donkey's and horses have a common ancestor, they have each evolved along different paths to the point that they now have a different number of chromosomes. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.
This means that they are still genetically similar enough to reproduce, but different enough that (for the most part) the offspring are sterile. Mules are a type of F-1 hybrid.
Eventually, the lizards on this island may evolve to the point where they can no longer breed with the lizards from the other island. However, they can still mate with each other. If a genetic mutation occurred that did not allow a lizard to mate there would be no way to pass on that genetic information...
Homo erectus to homo sapiens; micro or macro?
"Evidence" - the poster - is using what is known as a "strawman" of evolution - a strawman built by Ken Ham, propagated through his organisations: ICR, and Answers in Genesis.
His statements demonstrate that he does not know what he is talking about. Nothing he has said about evolution up to this point has been true or accurate.
Post #44 demonstrates that he is intentionally lying to further his religion.
This is known as Lying for Jesus ™.
To those of you in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere:
This is what we, in America, have to put up with. It is what our politicians believe and practice. It is what blocks our funding for actual science. It is what cripples children's education.
And it is spreading, to Turkey, to Europe, to Australia, and beyond.
#44, how does intelligent design in any way involve Jesus? Isn't he just a son of your God? He wasn't there when this all took place, leave him out of this.
let's exile all the bible scientists and bible doctors to an island somewhere. In a few generations, the problem will be gone.
Re: "New information". I imagine this means the formation of additional chromosomes. This happens all the time. It is called "aneuploidy".
@Evidence
Your definition of "evolution" is different from that used the biological sciences.
@Rebdav
This article directly addresses your question about mules and has some good basic info about one class of major mutational event, chromosome number changes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
@48-
"Believing we had an common ancestor means you belive[sic] well[sic] all came from a rock that was rained on for millions of years."
Wrong again.
1.) Evolution does not attempt to explain where life came from, only how it came to be how it is. I haven't heard the "rock rained" on theory, but I think it's a lot less plausible than others.
2.) How is that any more of a stretch than believing in a creator-less creator who existed before things existed?
3.) WTF do you care? If you're convinced that your Abrahamic Hygiene Deity will come back to eternally damn us sinners any day now why bother convincing us? More Heaven for you and your 72 virgins. Wait... am I getting mixed up again? Of course. 72 virgins is crazzzzzyyyyy not sane and rational like your afterlife.
@GHurley, #61
The "new information" thing is a canard of the Intelligent Design movement. It is meaningless because they refuse to define "information". It's a semantic device used to confuse and intimidate people into questioning evolution.
Human intelligence hasn't evolved in 25,000 years either. That's why we're all squatting in our furs scratching these messages in the sand.
Nothing ever changes unless some powerful wizard waves a big stick.
@g.park
Actually, there is some evidence that DNA came into being supported by crystal formation.
@ #42:
In the common vernacular, a "mutation" is some freaky thing that happens because of radiation or something.
Mutations happen all the time - that's one of the things that contributes to variation in populations. For example, the adult human's ability to digest lactose is the result of a mutation: specifically, a mutation that allows for the continued production of lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose. People in dairy-farming cultures who had this mutation were able to digest a high-calorie, readily available food source. This gave them a better chance at surviving and reproducing. When they did reproduce, they passed that lactose mutation along to their kids. Over time, that mutation became common because it helped people survive. Lactose intolerance is common among people whose ancestors never raised dairy animals, because if that mutation happened at all, there was no selective pressure keeping it around.
Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations over long periods of time. As mutations occur and natural selection acts on them (i.e. individuals who are best suited to their environments will reproduce better), populations will change. That's evolution. Eventually, the population might change so much that we call it a different species compared to its ancestors. That's speciation.
As for the dominant/recessive thing - no, mutations are not all recessive. Otherwise we would have no dominant traits, since all of our physical features are essentially the product of mutation and natural selection.
Takuan:
Nnno.
First: We aren't inhumane fascists. We don't censor because we let idiots demonstrate their idiocy in public and then we turn to our children and say "And that's why we aren't X". Everyone needs examples of what not to do, and people have - hard as it may be to believe - engaged their brains and realised they were caught in a cult / scam / bullshit and have walked away from it.
Second: Even if we /were/ inhumane fascists, this "problem" has been bred in to the European population and European society for 1500 years at least - since the Roman and thus Catholic conquest of Europe - if not longer. Who knows how long it will take to breed out gullibility and pigheaded willingness to Lie For Jesus™?
That looks like the end of round one. By the end of the working day, I would expect many more Evidencers to pop up. It ain't over yet.
#14 Evidence:
AHHH HA HA Ha hah aha ahaha ha..
@ everything else Evidence has posted:
AHHHHHH HA HA AH AH HA Ha HA HA Ha ha h ah ahaha ah haaaa
Seriously, Takuan, is that really you? Hilarious!
You do know Teresa said not to sign up more than one account don't you..? Even for shits and grins..
Classic Takuan. Brilliant.
#44 "Evidence"....thanks for giving me the biggest laugh of the day. Hope you are joking. You are .......aren't you? Please say you are....
(By the way, Dawkins did NOT say in Expelled that we came from aliens. When pressed by a very annoying Stein for a hypothesis as to where life came from (which evolution does not even try to address) Dawkin's mentioned panspermia under duress as one of the hypothesis that exists. He himself does not believe that's the case.)
Evidence, although I don't agree with you, I find your argument that Jesus was actually a woman who posed as a man an an attempt to expose the hypocrisy of Judeo-Roman society quite fascinating. Do please keep up with the interesting and informative posts.
Even the Pope believes in evolution.
Mechphisto:
In fact, Stein was not the one doing the interviewing. Have you seen the movie - ? Did they dub in Stein's voice asking questions over the actual interviewers?
If that is the case, I'd like to know if Mr. Stein ... "editorialised" the questions. /Smoooothed/ them, y'know. Fudged. Mislead. Little white lies. Invalidated his journalistic credibility (as if he ever had any).
why does everyone always assume I am not an inhumane fascist?
Takuan - Touche'. Perhaps you are.
Wow, that's cool about the lizards.
Just saying.
Too much fighting here, not enough lizards.
#69 -- but will these new Evidences show signs of evolving?
Andygates: Yeahp. I bet those lizards hurt like the dickens when they bite yer fingertip.
#79
Well, they say you should try to live what you believe...
It was probably unessecarially provocative of Mark to bring Ben Stein into this one.
I saw a lizard once. It was sleeping.
#57 Homo erectus to homo sapiens; micro or macro? Answer Fiction, a drawing is not evidence.
#59 He is God. Col 1:16 For by Him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
#63 You are confusing Christianity with Islam. I only say something because I don't want any of you to go to hell.
#72 and others. I am not joking. I knew one of you would run to the spaghetti monster and start slacking while riding your pink unicorn so I tried to cut you off at the pass, so to speak.
Enough about ben fucking stein. I havent seen the crapsterpiece yet, but all I can think of, every time BB drops his name, is that I have a FOAF who is blacklisted by the arrogant asses in the scientific community, a blacklist that is not based on fact but on the beliefs of those in that community.
Now I don't think any of you posters are understanding the term 'species' correctly; 'species' is an artificial labeling of critters by mankind, and the labeling itself is mutable. One species can change into another as some scientist sees what he believes is proof that this organism isn't really all that different from this other organism as a previous scientist believed.
Signed,
a creative evolutionist
Some times you just have to put on the armor of Christ and go to battle against science.
God made drug resistant virii. Duh.
#53: Science teachers around the world seem to be doing just fine. It's the ones in the US (who evidently must have taught EVIDENCE) that are failing.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
-j
Evidence is a boring troll
Would it be possible to introduce Ben Stein to a small island far away from the rest of us? We could go check on him in 30 years to see if HE'S changed.
#73 Words have meaning. I use words with definitions you would find in Webster's dictionary. I don't pour new meaning into them as you apparently are.
#74 Does the pope believe the Bible? I have never heard him preach it and rarely quotes it.
You guys are fleshing out the movie "Expelled" no debate just shut up, be quite, you unlearned flunky. What name have I called you? What are you all so afraid of? Truth?
"a drawing is not evidence."
By that same argument, I must conclude that the person known as "Evidence" does not exist, since words on a screen are not evidence.
My psycholoist has instructed me not to argue with noexistent people, and so my comments on this thread will only pertain to lizards from now on.
So this "evidence" person just automatically shows up to post on BB solely in an evolution story?
When one lacks confidence just curse and call names.
That is so compelling to your arguments.
The changes the biologists report are similar in kind to the changes Dawkins had software for in The Blind Watchmaker. It is evolution.
#89 - No, not LITERALLY. He understands that much of it is allegories and morality tales. And, it also has inherent faults from being written and re-translated so long ago before we knew that the Earth was round and not the center of the solar system, and how the Sun works etc.
#91 I spontaneously generated. ;0)
Anyone know any good lizard recipes.
There was supposed to be a question mark there.
When one lacks evidence, just threaten Hell.
Another cool aspect to the study was that it was interrupted by the Croatian civil war in the mid-1990s, so when the researchers were finally able to return in 2004, they didn't know if they'd find any of their lizards at all. It made the results even more surprising.
Uh, huh. And santy claus is a jolly ol' elf.
When these reptilians sprout feathered wings and start to fly, or grow fur and milk teets, wake me up.
In the meantime, sparky, all that's being observed are characteristics in an already existing gene pool.
But, some people need that 'crutch of faith' that darwinism demands, so - look! santy claus too!
Un-freekin' believable.
Evidence, thanks for the clarification. But when you write @20, "I would say true abomination would be the change of one sex into another sex" as your justification for evading Deuteronomy's prohibition on your cross-dressing lifestyle (Deut 22:5), don't you think that you should take into account the meaning of the words as used by the people you are arguing against?
#94 It is God's word. Read it and see.
I read it plainly. The fact of the Earth being round was in the Bible before science discovered it.
Isa 40:22 [It is] He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Science and the Bible are not opposed to each other.
Truth is truth. Theory is theory and will change.
God does not change He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I have yet to encounter a single person who claims not to "believe in evolution" who can actually explain it accurately. I take it on faith that they must be out there, but I've never found one.
FALLOUT 3 better have lizards on a stick! I'm tellin' ya!
Evidence: As you can see, scads of people are offering up tons of evidence as to why evolution is viable and working theory.
You seem to think that == "shut up."
Well, yeah, in a way I guess it is.
i.e.: Your non-scientific scientific arguments are without merit and don't belong in a conversation about science; go take them to Sunday School.
Lizards on a stick, is all I'm sayin'!
Wait...Christians don't believe in Santa Claus?
Got to go for now.
I am going to church I hope you are interested enough to examine the evidence to where it leads.
You claim mountains of evidence and point me to microscopic levels.
Search for the truth.
God bless you all.
To make a Screaming Green Lizard:
Mix 1 part 151 rum and 1 part Green Chartreuse brandy snifter.
By the way, can you imagine the funding application for this one? "We want to take some lizards, drop them on an island, and uh, see what happens."
@Evidence-
"a drawing is not evidence"
Neither is a book.
And, I et to expend some useless knowledge: nobody ever thouht the Earth was flat, they thought it was shaped like a contact lens. cf. Dantes Divine Comedy.
"Evidence" is so far out there that I am really hoping it's someone's elaborate joke. But, having known people who argue that exact thing (and having been one of them) I'm afraid the conversation is all too serious.
Please be aware that characters like this do not represent the sentiments of all Christians, or, IMO, Christ's teachings. The whole evolution thing, in my mind, is absolutely not worth bringing into the picture.
The New Testament has much more to do with humility, selflessness, and personal responsibility than with winning arguments and making people bow to our beliefs.