Cosmos on Fox & NGC

[DMX7]

Oh man... I am loving this. Neil is going on an hour long anti-creationist screed. He is really sticking it to you religious nut cases! Go Neil!

[silverblk mystix]

who are the ugly people in the pics?

[DMX7]

who are the ugly people in the pics?

That's kyle orton sleeping.

[baseline bum]

Even better than the original so far.

[silverblk mystix]

That's kyle orton sleeping.


Looks like a faggot.

Thanks!

[RD2191]

13.8 billion years old.
"With at least 200 billion galaxies out there (and possibly even more (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/28/the-deepest-view-of-the-universe-ever/)), we’re very likely talking about a Universe filled with around 1024 planets, or, for those of you who like it written out, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe."
Only 1 has life that decided to "evolve". All this show does is reaffirm my belief in God.

[Bill_Brasky]

Great show.

[ChumpDumper]

13.8 billion years old.
"With at least 200 billion galaxies out there (and possibly even more (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/28/the-deepest-view-of-the-universe-ever/)), we’re very likely talking about a Universe filled with around 1024 planets, or, for those of you who like it written out, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe."
Only 1 has life that decided to "evolve". All this show does is reaffirm my belief in God. How do you know it's the only one?

[RD2191]

How do you know it's the only one?
I don't, but so far as of today, it is.

[ChumpDumper]

I don'tOK.

[RD2191]

I am right, there is no life anywhere else in our Universe. Spin it however you like, but as of today, life on other planets does not exist.

[IronMaxipad]

Shit was pretty awesome.

[phyzik]

I am right, there is no life anywhere else in our Universe. Spin it however you like, but as of today, life on other planets does not exist.

I'm sure you're going to spin this in some way to support the "evidence" of a god, but you would be wrong.

The sheer number of planets, not only in our own galaxy, but the many billions of observable galaxies, suggest there HAS to be life out there besides earth. May we ever observe it? that could be debated. The distances are, literally, astronomical... But to think we are the only sentient species in the entire universe who have cognitive abilities is astronomically asinine given the size of the observable universe.

[DMX7]

13.8 billion years old.
"With at least 200 billion galaxies out there (and possibly even more (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/28/the-deepest-view-of-the-universe-ever/)), we’re very likely talking about a Universe filled with around 1024 planets, or, for those of you who like it written out, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe."
Only 1 has life that decided to "evolve". All this show does is reaffirm my belief in God.

Only 1? You're prepared to say definitively that there is only one... and that's based on the fact that we've never stepped foot on another planet and only recently sent a probe to another?

[DMX7]

I am right, there is no life anywhere else in our Universe. Spin it however you like, but as of today, life on other planets does not exist.

As of today? You need to insert a very big qualifier in that statement "as of today... that we know of"; and that's considering we don't know much.

[RD2191]

I'm sure you're going to spin this in some way to support the "evidence" of a god, but you would be wrong.

The sheer number of planets, not only in our own galaxy, but the many billions of observable galaxies, suggest there HAS to be life out there besides earth. May we ever observe it? that could be debated. The distances are, literally, astronomical... But to think we are the only sentient species in the entire universe who have cognitive abilities is astronomically asinine given the size of the observable universe.
Do you believe in God or a Creator?

[RD2191]

If you don't, why not? You believe in life elsewhere in our Universe so how can you say God does not exist?

[apalisoc_9]

That's why you have to believe in Islam..There are other earths in the universe and Allah scattered life all over the universe.


Moslems believe that Earth is not a unique planet but rather God created several planets like Earth throughout the universe:

(Quran 65.12) Allah is the one who created seven heavens and from Earth like them (of corresponding type); [Allah’s] command descends among them (heavens and earths) so that you may know that Allah is capable of anything and that Allah knows everything.

In Islam, Earth is not a unique planet. Other planets like Earth do exist throughout the universe. Actually the Quran says that other planets also have land animals:

(Quran 42.29) And from His signs He created the heavens and the Earth; and the land animals that He scattered in BOTH of them (heavens and Earth); And He is capable of gathering them (in one place) if He wishes.

[DMX7]

If you don't, why not? You believe in life elsewhere in our Universe so how can you say God does not exist?

We can't say that definitely... we can say though that there is no direct evidence that God exists though.

[RD2191]

We can't say that definitely... we can say though that there is no direct evidence that God exists though.
How so? Do you know how big the universe is? How do we know that the evidence isn't out there? If you believe that life exist elsewhere in the universe then you can not rule out the possibility of a creator.

[RD2191]

I'm sure you're going to spin this in some way to support the "evidence" of a god, but you would be wrong.

The sheer number of planets, not only in our own galaxy, but the many billions of observable galaxies, suggest there HAS to be life out there besides earth. May we ever observe it? that could be debated. The distances are, literally, astronomical... But to think we are the only sentient species in the entire universe who have cognitive abilities is astronomically asinine given the size of the observable universe.
So you're saying the possibility of a Creator is very real? That's what it sounds like to me.

[baseline bum]

I'm sure you're going to spin this in some way to support the "evidence" of a god, but you would be wrong.

The sheer number of planets, not only in our own galaxy, but the many billions of observable galaxies, suggest there HAS to be life out there besides earth. May we ever observe it? that could be debated. The distances are, literally, astronomical... But to think we are the only sentient species in the entire universe who have cognitive abilities is astronomically asinine given the size of the observable universe.

Yeah, I think most people don't have any idea how huge our universe is and how much space there is between things. I mean Andromeda, which we're in free fall towards right now and which is the closest large galaxy looks tiny naked eye if you find it in the night sky (and you have to know EXACTLY where to look), and it is significantly bigger and brighter than the Milky Way (though the extent of the galaxy is 6 full moons width from our vantage point if you have really sensitive equipment taking long exposures). That speck of light we see from this extremely close galaxy took 2.5 million years to reach us. I mean you go outside and look in the sky and most of what you see is only a few thousand light years away. Unless you're in the Southern Hemisphere, every single naked eye object you see other than Andromeda is in our galaxy. And if you're in the South, it's everything but the Magellanic Clouds.

Not that I really comprehend the size of the universe either. How can one possibly comprehend the size of a bubble, what, 60 billion light years in diameter?

[DMX7]

How so? Do you know how big the universe is? How do we know that the evidence isn't out there? If you believe that life exist elsewhere in the universe then you can not rule out the possibility of a creator.

I believe that there is likely life on other planets -- not that there is with 100% certainty. That's based on the fact that the right conditions for life exist on this planet, and because there are almost certainly planets with similar conditions out in the universe, it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that there is likely life elsewhere.

There is no direct and irrefutable evidence of God on earth and no reason to believe we would find evidence of God if we looked elsewhere. That's the difference between our reasoning.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Great stuff, enjoyed it.

[leemajors]

I'm gonna catch it with my 9 year old.

[InRareForm]

Good stuff. Anyway to get the masses to realize there's more out there than just celebrity shit and sports.

[Spurminator]

Found this while reading a review of the first episode. Really funny for fans of the original Sagan series.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIbbTHQmPkE

[CubanSucks]

Really interesting, especially when they put all of time in the frame of one year.

It's a shame some of you can't appreciate it for the science instead of sticking it to mom and dad. For fuck's sake you're more annoying than the bible thumpers

[RD2191]

It really is an awesome show, except for all the evolution talk.

[Blake]

Only 1 has life that decided to "evolve". All this show does is reaffirm my belief in God. [/FONT][/COLOR]

So who created your god?

Does that god believe in an even higher power?

[RD2191]

So who created your god?

Does that god believe in an even higher power?
God has always existed, and no he does not.

[xmas1997]

God has always existed, and no he does not.


You're replying to a known ignorant troll?
Blake knows the answer, but he can't troll you if he acts like he does.
He has to pretend God does not exist.
You should know this about Blake by now.
:lol

[Bill_Brasky]

Thread is already turning to shit. Quit with your faggot god arguments.

[jeebus]

someone needs to start another cosmos thread cuz this one has gone down the shitter

[baseline bum]

someone needs to start another cosmos thread cuz this one has gone down the shitter

All threads here lead to the shitter bro.

[jeebus]

All threads here lead to the shitter bro.
start it in the pistons forum tbh. it's an untapped paradise iirc

[Koolaid_Man]

13.8 billion years old.
"With at least 200 billion galaxies out there (and possibly even more (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/28/the-deepest-view-of-the-universe-ever/)), we’re very likely talking about a Universe filled with around 1024 planets, or, for those of you who like it written out, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe."
Only 1 has life that decided to "evolve". All this show does is reaffirm my belief in God.

+ Infinity.

People like the OP (and I do mean disrespect) are literally uneducated MORONS looking to be hoodwinked. We can create "wonders of the world" and sit back and marvel at those accomplishments, yet something as complex and intricate as the universe along with life is left to the imaginations of peter pan science? What's the likelihood that something as statuesque as Mt. Rushmore developed over time on it's own? Fact is it would never happen...in fact not only can Mt. Rushmore not ever be produced out of chances of evolution but the the rock would only disintegrate and be covered with more rock, dirt, and debris in the cosmic timescale.

People who believe in Evolution are an embarrassment to life...

[Koolaid_Man]

I'm sure you're going to spin this in some way to support the "evidence" of a god, but you would be wrong.

The sheer number of planets, not only in our own galaxy, but the many billions of observable galaxies, suggest there HAS to be life out there besides earth. May we ever observe it? that could be debated. The distances are, literally, astronomical... But to think we are the only sentient species in the entire universe who have cognitive abilities is astronomically asinine given the size of the observable universe.


^ which is the same asinine reason that evolution is impossible

[RD2191]

+ Infinity.

People like the OP (and I do mean disrespect) are literally uneducated MORONS looking to be hoodwinked. We can create "wonders of the world" and sit back and marvel at those accomplishments, yet something as complex and intricate as the universe along with life is left to the imaginations of peter pan science? What's the likelihood that something as statuesque as Mt. Rushmore developed over time on it's own? Fact is it would never happen...in fact not only can Mt. Rushmore not ever be produced out of chances of evolution but the the rock would only disintegrate and be covered with more rock, dirt, and debris in the cosmic timescale.

People who believe in Evolution are an embarrassment to life...
:toast

[Koolaid_Man]

evolution does not create penis's and vagina's and orgasms that feel good....big tits that we can fondle and suck on...assess that we can grab onto and even penetrate...french kisses that we can savor....it's a mathematical impossibility

[RD2191]

Thread is already turning to shit. Quit with your faggot god arguments.
Why are you so angry? Why are you scared? God does exist. You may think you can live your life without paying for your actions but the day will come when you will be judged on what you did. God is a loving God, no need to fear him.

[Fpoonsie]

Is there a place to watch the first ep if we missed the premiere?

[RD2191]

Is there a place to watch the first ep if we missed the premiere?
Encore tonight on nat geo.

[Fpoonsie]

Encore tonight on nat geo.

Thanks.

[SupremeGuy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: both hardcore theists and atheists are assholes.

The absolute worst of the worst are theists who don't believe in evolution and atheists who use their beliefs as an excuse to mock/attack a specific religion instead of mock/attack all religions.

[Koolaid_Man]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: both hardcore theists and atheists are assholes.

The absolute worst of the worst are theists who don't believe in evolution and atheists who use their beliefs as an excuse to mock/attack a specific religion instead of mock/attack all religions.


^You straddle strap-onsPERIOD!!!

[TE]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: both hardcore theists and atheists are assholes.

The absolute worst of the worst are theists who don't believe in evolution and atheists who use their beliefs as an excuse to mock/attack a specific religion instead of mock/attack all religions.
Yeahup.

[RD2191]

Encore airing right now on nat geo.

[RD2191]

Man, Neil Tyson reminds of Cleveland from Fam Guy.:lol

[thispego]

when's the replay?

[thispego]

wasn't it in FX the other day? I don't have NatGeo where i'm at

[RD2191]

wasn't it in FX the other day? I don't have NatGeo where i'm at
FX or Fox? I think it was on Fox last night.

[Spurminator]

http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515

[Spurminator]

I haven't hard one "war on religion" comment on this series yet. Can you imagine the manufactured outrage machine if this series had been on any other network besides FOX? A mainstream broadcast network series about the Big Bang and the origins of the Universe and the historical science-stifling practices of organized religion, all introduced by President Barack Obama? O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest would have been whining about this for a week.

[hehateme]

The only thing this show needs now is a Bill Nye cameo and robd's head would explode from all the evolutionary testosterone on one frame.

[RD2191]

The only thing this show needs now is a Bill Nye cameo and robd's head would explode from all the evolutionary testosterone on one frame.
:lolBill Nye is a scumbag, Neil Tyson seems like a cool dude.

[DMX7]

God has always existed, and no he does not.

So a creator of God wasn't necessary? I guess divine creators aren't necessary after all.

[RD2191]

So a creator of God wasn't necessary? I guess divine creators aren't necessary after all.
I'm telling you what I believe, what the Bible says. You can believe what you want. That's your choice.

[mrsmaalox]

DVR'd it because the only thing I could handle last night was True Detective. I've never seen the original Cosmos, I really enjoyed tonight's and looking forward to next week---I was worried I'd be left with nothing to watch on Sundays! This is one of the few times I wish I had a larger tv. I love the animation.

[RD2191]

So a creator of God wasn't necessary? I guess divine creators aren't necessary after all.
Also, God has always existed, meaning he did not need a creator. Life on earth hasn't always been here. Meaning, it needed a creator.

[spurraider21]

i can't stand agnostics on their high horses. :cry both sides are bad

if ur agnostic, thats cool. stop preaching

[jeebus]

wasn't it in FX the other day? I don't have NatGeo where i'm at

the premiere aired on like 10 of the fox networks. I think the remainder of the episodes will just be on Fox with NatGeo following on Monday.

[SpursRock20]

Very interesting watch. Will definitely check out again next Sunday. It's amazing to think that we, as humans, are just on the cusp of much of the scientific knowledge that we will undoubtedly end up uncovering.

[tlongII]

LMAO @ the idiots in here that don't believe in evolution. :lmao

The evidence is literally overwhelming! In fact it's likely that all animals evolved from something like a sponge. Theists just don't want to believe this is possible though. It messes with their ego.

[Bill_Brasky]

Why are you so angry? Why are you scared? God does exist. You may think you can live your life without paying for your actions but the day will come when you will be judged on what you did. God is a loving God, no need to fear him.

Nah. I think ill just live my life thank you very much. If I die and there's a heaven, ill tell god that I did my best to lead a great life and help others as much as I could. If he still wants to send me to hell(lol a forgiving god sending people to hell) because I didn't go to church and worship him then I want no part of his "heaven" anyway.

[TDMVPDPOY]

robdiaz has to stop shittalking or name ur place

[Koolaid_Man]

LMAO @ the idiots in here that don't believe in evolution. :lmao

The evidence is literally overwhelming! In fact it's likely that all animals evolved from something like a sponge. Theists just don't want to believe this is possible though. It messes with their ego.

being a fool is one thing but being an old fool is totally inexcusable

[RD2191]

LMAO @ the idiots in here that don't believe in evolution. :lmao

The evidence is literally overwhelming! In fact it's likely that all animals evolved from something like a sponge. Theists just don't want to believe this is possible though. It messes with their ego.
There is zero evidence of one animal evolving into another.

[Blake]

There is zero evidence of one animal evolving into another.

invisible all powerful wizard making humans and animals from dirt makes much more sense

[RD2191]

invisible all powerful wizard making humans and animals from dirt makes much more sense
isn't that evolution without the wizard part? what an idiot.

[Blake]

isn't that evolution without the wizard part? what an idiot.

No. You should put down the Bible and pick up a science book.

[.G.]

Watched the original series a while back and always wondered what a remake would be like. So glad they chose Tyson, although Michio Kaku would've been ok, too. Anyway, the fact the show is airing on ANY fox network is interesting, to say the least. So many jokes/angles.

KA3U-NH8J3U

[Bito Corleone]

I'm telling you what I believe, what the Bible says. You can believe what you want. That's your choice. Honest question. Do you truly believe that people who wouldn't even accept that the world was round for another 1000+ years knew more about the origins of life and the universe than astrophysicists with access to today's information and technology? Or do you think it's simply more likely that the concept of "God" was created to explain things that their information and technology could not explain at the time.

I understand the need to believe in a god even though I personally do not, but to outright dismiss something like evolution because it's not "what the Bible says" makes absolutely no sense to me. Please help me to better understand why you, and others like you, think what you do. Is your faith in the men that wrote the Bible all those years ago really so great that you are willing to completely ignore any new information?

[DMX7]

i can't stand agnostics on their high horses. :cry both sides are bad

if ur agnostic, thats cool. stop preaching

LOL, high horse? You mean you can't stand that we're right.

[tlongII]

being a fool is one thing but being an old fool is totally inexcusable

I'd rather be a fool than ignorant.

[tlongII]

There is zero evidence of one animal evolving into another.

There is plenty of evidence. We have observed genetic mutations that create new species during the short period of time we've had to observe it.

[z0sa]

isn't that evolution without the wizard part? what an idiot.

You would be much better off including evolution in your view of the Bible. This is the problem most people have with evolution is that it seemingly has no place in the the Bible, detracting from its plausibility (not myself, for the most part at least, but Ive talked with hardcore creationists enough to know it's true).

There are still a world of contradictions, but for the most part, it's really not that hard if you open your mind just the tiniest bit and be willing to believe evolution could have occurred. See the key is simply convincing (some might consider it fooling) yourself into believing no matter which way is really happened, you still win. I wouldn't suggest making a habit of doing it (if you haven't already...), but in this case, it's totally acceptable.

I won't lie, that's exactly what I did. I'm not really a Christian, more of a deist or 'all-theist'.

[RD2191]

You would be much better off including evolution in your view of the Bible. This is the problem most people have with evolution is that it seemingly has no place in the the Bible, detracting from its plausibility (not myself, for the most part at least, but Ive talked with hardcore creationists enough to know it's true).

There are still a world of contradictions, but for the most part, it's really not that hard if you open your mind just the tiniest bit and be willing to believe evolution could have occurred. See the key is simply convincing (some might consider it fooling) yourself into believing no matter which way is really happened, you still win. I wouldn't suggest making a habit of doing it (if you haven't already...), but in this case, it's totally acceptable.

I won't lie, that's exactly what I did. I'm not really a Christian, more of a deist or 'all-theist'.
I believe in macro evolution or adaptation in a way. I do not believe that one species can ever evolve into another.

[z0sa]

I believe in macro evolution or adaptation in a way. I do not believe that one species can ever evolve into another.

Macroevolution = the type of evolution you've been arguing against for quite some time now...

[RD2191]

Macroevolution = the type of evolution you've been arguing against for quite some time now...
well micro then, not really up to date on my terminology. I believe that an animal can adapt to a new place or environment, but not evolve into a completely different animal.

[z0sa]

well micro then, not really up to date on my terminology. I believe that an animal can adapt to a new place or environment, but not evolve into a completely different animal.

This terminology was coined in the 1920's tbh.

Lemme ask you a question: if an animal can adapt to its new surroundings, what stops it from constantly adapting to its surroundings for millions of years until it finally becomes a totally different animal?

[RD2191]

This terminology was coined in the 1920's tbh.

Lemme ask you a question: if an animal can adapt to its new surroundings, what stops it from constantly adapting to its surroundings for millions of years until it finally becomes a totally different animal?
Who knows tbh, Someone better versed in science may be able to answer that question. I just don't see an animal turning into another animal. No proof of it anywhere. Maybe the proof is yet to be found.

[tlongII]

This terminology was coined in the 1920's tbh.

Lemme ask you a question: if an animal can adapt to its new surroundings, what stops it from constantly adapting to its surroundings for millions of years until it finally becomes a totally different animal?

It didn't even take that long for elephants to evolve from a mastodon or mammoth like creature.

[z0sa]

Who knows tbh, Someone better versed in science may be able to answer that question. I just don't see an animal turning into another animal. No proof of it anywhere. Maybe the proof is yet to be found.

So if you don't even know anything about what you're arguing about, why are you bothering to debate it?

You're willfully ignorant on a subject you've defended for how many dozens or hundreds of posts?

http://cdn.premiersoccerchat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DoubleFacepalmRickerPicard.jpg

[tlongII]

Who knows tbh, Someone better versed in science may be able to answer that question. I just don't see an animal turning into another animal. No proof of it anywhere. Maybe the proof is yet to be found.

The evidence is seen throughout the fossil record. You can't absolutely prove it because evolutionary science has only been around a couple hundred years. It can't be physically observed in such a short time frame.

[z0sa]

It didn't even take that long for elephants to evolve from a mastodon or mammoth like creature.

I think it's a mixture of a standard evolution and punctuated equilibrium, depending on how 'well' an evolutionary trait(s) work out for a species, the species around it, and the physical environment.

[RD2191]

So if you don't even know anything about what you're arguing about, why are you bothering to debate it?

You're willfully ignorant on a subject you've defended for how many dozens or hundreds of posts?

http://cdn.premiersoccerchat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DoubleFacepalmRickerPicard.jpg
I said not very well versed, I've studied the subject and have yet to find any solid evidence for a so called "evolution". I can't get into specifics on the subject but as of today nothing has been able to change my stance on the subject.

[z0sa]

The evidence is seen throughout the fossil record. You can't absolutely prove it because evolutionary science has only been around a couple hundred years. It can't be physically observed in such a short time frame.

The reality is, we've seen it a billion times with microscopic lifeforms. It's the reason there's no cure for the common cold.

[RD2191]

The evidence is seen throughout the fossil record. You can't absolutely prove it because evolutionary science has only been around a couple hundred years. It can't be physically observed in such a short time frame.
So if it can't be observed how can anyone say its true? Its impossible to observe 1 species completely turning into another.

[z0sa]

I said not very well versed, I've studied the subject and have yet to find any solid evidence for a so called "evolution". I can't get into specifics on the subject but as of today nothing has been able to change my stance on the subject.

That's because you're being blatantly and willfully ignorant.

[z0sa]

So if it can't be observed how can anyone say its true? Its impossible to observe 1 species completely turning into another.

Actually, this happens all the time. Scientists study bacteria evolution all the time, and they can make bacteria evolve easily.

[RD2191]

That's because you're being blatantly and willfully ignorant.
Not really, I'm open to anything and all it keeps doing is reassuring my faith in a Creator.

[RD2191]

Actually, this happens all the time. Scientists study bacteria evolution all the time, and they can make bacteria evolve easily.
What about an actual Animal? Say a Cat or even a dog evolving into something else?

[z0sa]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.Ux_YiIUa5GQ

Read this. It is quite interesting and incredibly revealing about the fact of evolution occurring and how it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.


A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

[spurraider21]

LOL, high horse? You mean you can't stand that we're right.
damn. talk about making my point for me

[z0sa]

What about an actual Animal? Say a Cat or even a dog evolving into something else?

Bacteria are animals. The term you're looking for is 'mammal.' Sigh.

[RD2191]

Bacteria are animals. The term you're looking for is 'mammal.' Sigh.
Ugh, no, they are not. And there is Zero proof of evolution. In the sense that one animal can completely evolve into a different animal.

[RD2191]

That article is obviously biased and shows absolutely zero proof of evolution.

[Koolaid_Man]

I'd rather be a fool than ignorant.

of course you would but unfortunately for you your daddy was ignorant and your mama was certainly a dam fool...

[RD2191]

of course you would but unfortunately for you your daddy was ignorant and your mama was certainly a dam fool...
:lol

[z0sa]

Ugh, no, they are not. And there is Zero proof of evolution. In the sense that one animal can completely evolve into a different animal.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/scientists-evolve-huge-hyperswarming-pathogenic-bacteria-with-multiple-whipping-flagella


The researchers put Pseudomonas aeruginosa on special plates over a period of days. On those plates, bacteria that could spread out had an advantage in harvesting nutrients from the surface, and within a matter of days, some of those bacteria started hyperswarming...

Investigation of the bacteria showed that P. aeruginosa gained its hyperswarming ability through a single point mutation in a flagellar synthesis regulator (FleN). As a result, the bacteria, which usually have one single flagellum, were locked into a multi-flagellated state. They became better at moving around to cover a surface, but much worse at forming densely packed, surface-attached biofilm communities. All told, the researchers saw this new ability independently arise 20 times.

Proof, right there. It became an entirely different creature over the course of days. Scientists made it happen by applying the most simple, beginning and obvious fact of evolution - survival of the fittest. Not only did the later generations become wider, it grew a bunch of tails!

And bacteria are part of the animal kingdom.

[Koolaid_Man]

Nah. I think ill just live my life thank you very much. If I die and there's a heaven, ill tell god that I did my best to lead a great life and help others as much as I could. If he still wants to send me to hell(lol a forgiving god sending people to hell) because I didn't go to church and worship him then I want no part of his "heaven" anyway.

hey numnuts there's no such place as a fiery hell...and if there were how would you feel the fire if you depart your physical body @death? Hell is translated grave...therefore hell = the grave...that's it...there's no eternal torment but there is eternal bliss

[RD2191]

So if evolution is true, where are all the new species? Why aren't we seeing fish come out of water? The conditions aren't right? Well, we're alive, so what gives?

[z0sa]

Ugh, no, they are not. And there is Zero proof of evolution. In the sense that one animal can completely evolve into a different animal.

It literally shows every part of evolution. It's pretty sad you can't see that, tbh.

[RD2191]

You're bringing up bacteria, I'm talking about a Mammal or a Reptile.

[RD2191]

Remember how you learned in tenth grade that evolution is a fact because bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, and how evolutionists continue to proclaim this proof? Of course this evidence never explained how the bacteria could turn into a fish, or how the fish could turn into a giraffe. Nor did it explain how the bacteria evolved in the first place. The evidence didn’t even explain how the bacteria were able to respond so quickly to the antibiotics. Well if the whole argument wasn’t silly enough, now new research (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953)finds that drug resistance is actually an ancient trait because it was discovered in bacteria from an isolated cave in New Mexico, hundreds of yards underground:


A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.
This natural antibiotic resistance predates our use of antibiotics and could simultaneously (http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/12/drug-resistant-bacteria-discovered-in-4-million-year-old-cave/) (i) explain how such resistance appears rapidly after the introduction of a new antibiotic and (ii) relieve evolutionists of one of their already ridiculous arguments:


Clinical microbiologists have been perplexed for the longest time. When you bring a new antibiotic into the hospital, resistance inevitably appears shortly thereafter, within months to years. It’s still a big question: Where is this coming from. Almost no one thought to look at other bacteria, the ones that don’t necessarily cause disease.
Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

[RD2191]

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/antibiotic-resistance-scratch-another.html

[tlongII]

of course you would but unfortunately for you your daddy was ignorant and your mama was certainly a dam fool...

I think I'll just shake my head at you now.

[z0sa]

You seem to think that just because one type of bacteria is resistant to our current antibiotics, it disproves the fact bacteria are evolving brand new abilities, including extra body parts they didn't previously have so they can be the fittest in their community. You also seem unaware there's many bacteria that were not resistant to antibiotics and now have become so through genetic mutations.

You wanna talk biased, that site certainly is. LOL I love the line "nothing makes sense in the light of evolution." That's not an extremely broad sweeping statement reeking of hyperbole or anything.

[z0sa]

So if evolution is true, where are all the new species? Why aren't we seeing fish come out of water? The conditions aren't right? Well, we're alive, so what gives?

There's probably a trillion species on the planet...

ever heard of amphibians? And there's even animals that went back into the water, see dolphins and whale anatomy.

And how can you not notice the extreme similarities between the Great Apes and humans? It's uncanny, and you have to really be putting on the blinders to not see the resemblance.

[DMX7]

Not really, I'm open to anything and all it keeps doing is reassuring my faith in a Creator.

Then you're clearly not really open to anything.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so angry? Why are you scared? God does exist. You may think you can live your life without paying for your actions but the day will come when you will be judged on what you did. God is a loving God, no need to fear him.God loves you!

He's gonna kill you!

[ChumpDumper]

So if evolution is true, where are all the new species? Why aren't we seeing fish come out of water? The conditions aren't right? Well, we're alive, so what gives?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ckBlasgNSzg/SF6Gjl2Kd3I/AAAAAAAAGao/XkTXq6Sr-jQ/s400/Periophthalmus+modestus.jpg
Who's got segmented eyes?

[Blake]

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/antibiotic-resistance-scratch-another.html

^^ "how religion drives science"

:lol

[SnakeBoy]

Actually, this happens all the time. Scientists study bacteria evolution all the time, and they can make bacteria evolve easily.

This is natural selection not evolution, or macro evolution since most conflate evolution & natural selection. Scientist's cannot make a bacteria turn into a new and unrelated bacteria species.

The standard line is natural selection leads to evolution over "millions of years" but this is a bullshit line because it's not years that are important in evolutionary theory it is generations that are important. The term generations is never used though because then the theory either doesn't fit the fossil record at all or we should see new and unrelated species appear on a regular basis.

[Blake]

This is natural selection not evolution, or macro evolution since most conflate evolution & natural selection. Scientist's cannot make a bacteria turn into a new and unrelated bacteria species.

The standard line is natural selection leads to evolution over "millions of years" but this is a bullshit line because it's not years that are important in evolutionary theory it is generations that are important. The term generations is never used though because then the theory either doesn't fit the fossil record at all or we should see new and unrelated species appear on a regular basis.

So what's your theory then?

[SnakeBoy]

So what's your theory then?

Well I believe in science and God and don't find them to be incompatible. However, I don't conflate the two either. God is the why, science is the how.

So to answer your question specifically, I don't have my own personal theory of evolution. I do believe that with further advances in understanding the genome that Darwin's theory of evolution will ultimately be debunked and we will get a real answer to the origin of species. When it happens it'll happen quick, just think it wasn't long ago that science believed in a steady state universe and then one little discovery and that theory went into the trashcan.

[SnakeBoy]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.Ux_YiIUa5GQ

Read this. It is quite interesting and incredibly revealing about the fact of evolution occurring and how it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.

So after 44,000 generations E. coli was still E. coli....cool.

[Blake]

Well I believe in science and God and don't find them to be incompatible. However, I don't conflate the two either. God is the why, science is the how.

So to answer your question specifically, I don't have my own personal theory of evolution. I do believe that with further advances in understanding the genome that Darwin's theory of evolution will ultimately be debunked and we will get a real answer to the origin of species. When it happens it'll happen quick, just think it wasn't long ago that science believed in a steady state universe and then one little discovery and that theory went into the trashcan.

so I'm guessing you believe in a young earth/literal translation of Genesis?

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be open to God and evolution being compatible.

Is macro evolution really that much of a leap for you from micro evolution?

[SnakeBoy]

so I'm guessing you believe in a young earth/literal translation of Genesis?

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be open to God and evolution being compatible.


http://www.vipingilizce.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/reading_comprehension.jpg

[Blake]

I'm asking for clarification of your entire theory of how we got here.

But if you want to just post a jpeg and run away, it's no skin off my back.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm asking for clarification of your entire theory of how we got here.

But if you want to just post a jpeg and run away, it's no skin off my back.

I clearly posted that I don't find science and God incompatible. So how else should I respond when you "guess" exactly the opposite.

I also already said that I don't have my own personal scientific theory of how we got here and that I believe science will ultimately disprove the currently accepted theory of evolution. In other words, I don't believe that natural selection gradually leads to the development of new species. The fossil record clearly and repeatedly shows that at times life explodes with a great variety of new species. So some other genetic process must be occurring.

Clear enough now?

[Blake]

I clearly posted that I don't find science and God incompatible. So how else should I respond when you "guess" exactly the opposite.

i asked because clearly the Bible and science are incompatible.

very clearly, tbh.



I also already said that I don't have my own personal scientific theory of how we got here and that I believe science will ultimately disprove the currently accepted theory of evolution. In other words, I don't believe that natural selection gradually leads to the development of new species. The fossil record clearly and repeatedly shows that at times life explodes with a great variety of new species. So some other genetic process must be occurring.

Clear enough now?


The star of the show is a humble member of the daisy family, Tragopogon miscellus, better known as "goatsbeard," which began its long journey toward stability about 80 years -- and 40 generations -- ago."We can see for the first time what happens when a new species is formed," biologist Doug Soltis of the University of Florida said in a telephone interview. "We can see the process unfold, and it's still ongoing even as we speak. They (the plants) haven't figured all this out yet."


http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=13197168

That's 40 generations in just 80 years.

But even then, if you subscribe to the young earth club, I can see why you have issue with evolution.

For those of us though that understand that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or so, that seems to easily be enough time for basic life to evolve into where we are today.

[z0sa]

This is natural selection not evolution, or macro evolution since most conflate evolution & natural selection. Scientist's cannot make a bacteria turn into a new and unrelated bacteria species.

The standard line is natural selection leads to evolution over "millions of years" but this is a bullshit line because it's not years that are important in evolutionary theory it is generations that are important. The term generations is never used though because then the theory either doesn't fit the fossil record at all or we should see new and unrelated species appear on a regular basis.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Italian 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.

n 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

(Related: "Evolution's 'Driving Force' Shifts Based on Behavior, Study Says" [November 16, 2006].)

Lizard Swarm

While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design, according to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn't get back to island because of the war, Irschick said.

In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers access to the island laboratory.

(Read: "Kayaking the New Croatia" in National Geographic Adventure Magazine.)

"We didn't know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the original introductions were successful," Irschick said.

What they found, however, was shocking. "The island was swarming with lizards," he said.

The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Fast-Track Evolution

The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said.

The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said.

The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained.

Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.

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."

Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.

(Related news: "Komodo Dragon's Bite Is 'Weaker Than a House Cat's'" [April 18, 2008].)

The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's social and behavioral structure, he said. For one, the plentiful food sources allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population.

The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded.

Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said.

It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said.

"That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he said.

While researchers do know the invader's impact on its reptile brethren, they do not know how the species impacts local vegetation or insects, a subject of future study, Irschick said.

Dramatic Changes

The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

What's important to note here is we have the "original" version of the lizard still living as was constructed half a century ago. So we can observably see that in a very short time, generationally AND chronologically speaking, the lizard changed in order to thrive in its environment. This is a rare case where both evolution and natural selection are clearly on display.

In the (near and distant) future, an unending amount of these examples will be observed.

[z0sa]

So after 44,000 generations E. coli was still E. coli....cool.

So the ability to process an entirely new form of food that no other E coli can doesn't show evolution? They even reproduced the event by bringing frozen generations back. This means there's a genuine methodology at work.

If these e coli were released into a suitable environment, they would have a marked advantage over any other E. coli. They would dominate other populations.

Additionally, you can see even in the other 11 colonies that adaptation always occurs.

[SnakeBoy]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html



What's important to note here is we have the "original" version of the lizard still living as was constructed half a century ago. So we can observably see that in a very short time, generationally AND chronologically speaking, the lizard changed in order to thrive in its environment. This is a rare case where both evolution and natural selection are clearly on display.

In the (near and distant) future, an unending amount of these examples will be observed.

Maybe, maybe not...


"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

That's an old article but I doubt the smoking gun was discovered or we would have heard about it.



So the ability to process an entirely new form of food that no other E coli can doesn't show evolution?

Not necessarily.

I am not arguing against the concept of evolution as a whole, I'm just pointing out that the generally believed/taught version of evolution (aka Darwinism) is not correct. So when people pretend they are smarter than everyone while presenting a simple darwinian view of evolution they learned in middle school, they don't look very smart. Earlier I said science would debunk this view of evolution, I should have said it already has.

Here's a nice article for you...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/lets-get-rid-of-darwinism/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Let’s Get Rid of Darwinism

By OLIVIA JUDSON


(The third part in a series celebrating Charles Darwin.)

Charles Darwin was a giant. He did not merely write “On the Origin of Species” — one of the most important books ever written by anyone — in which he describes how evolution by natural selection works, and what some of its consequences and implications are. He also wrote — and this list is not exhaustive— a treatise on the formation of coral reefs that is still thought to be correct; a definitive monograph on barnacles, both extinct and extant; a book about how earthworms make soil; a now-classic text on carnivorous plants (the ones, like Venus fly-traps, that ensnare and digest insects); a book about the strange ways that orchids get themselves fertilized; and an account of the five years he spent aboard the ship HMS Beagle, which has become a classic of travel writing.

As if that wasn’t enough, he proposed sexual selection — the idea that decorations and ornaments, like peacocks’ tails, evolve because females in many species prefer to mate with the most beautiful males. Sexual selection has since become a major field of research in its own right.

In short, Darwin did more in one lifetime than most of us could hope to accomplish in two. But his giantism has had an odd and problematic consequence. It’s a tendency for everyone to refer back to him. “Why Darwin was wrong about X”; “Was Darwin wrong about Y?”; “What Darwin didn’t know about Z” — these are common headlines in newspapers and magazines, in both the biological and the general literature. Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.

Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

He wasn’t, and it has. Although several of his ideas — natural and sexual selection among them — remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology, the field as a whole has been transformed. If we were to go back in a time machine and fetch him to the present day, he’d find much of evolutionary biology unintelligible — at least until he’d had time to study genetics, statistics and computer science.

Oh, there would be so much to tell him! A full list would take me weeks to write out. But the obvious place to begin would be the discoveries of genetics, especially DNA. We’d have to explain that cells in each organism contain a code describing how to build that organism, written in chemical form — DNA — that evolutionary forces are constantly rewriting. Indeed, the study of DNA allows us to see the action of natural selection on a molecule-by-molecule basis. We can see the genes where natural selection acts to prevent evolutionary change, those where it drives change and those where it has no effect at all.

Then there’s the fusion of genetics with natural selection, which has enormously expanded our understanding of how natural selection can work. For example, it has led to the discovery that natural selection does not just shape individuals — the length of a beak, the color of a fin. It can also act on family groups, and thus drive the evolution of cooperation and other altruistic behaviors.

The reason is that evolutionary success can now be measured in terms of the number of genes an individual contributes to the next generation. Anyone who dies without reproducing does not directly contribute any. But because individuals have some genes in common with their family members, they can make an indirect genetic contribution if they help their relations to reproduce instead of reproducing themselves. Such “kin selection” is thought to have contributed to the evolution of the social insects — especially, ants, bees, wasps and termites — where only a few individuals reproduce and everyone else looks after the offspring.

We’d want to discuss evolution beyond natural selection — the other forces that can sometimes cause (or prevent) evolutionary change. For although natural selection is the only creative force in evolution — the only one that can produce complex structures such as wings and eyes — it is not the only force that affects which genes will spread, and which will vanish.

And, and, and.

What would he make of it all?

I think his reaction would be a mix of satisfaction and astonishment. Satisfaction: that natural selection has turned out to be such a powerful idea, explaining such a wide range of phenomena. Astonishment: for the same reason. He would, I think, be fascinated by the weird natural history that has been discovered in the past 150 years — such as Wolbachia, bacteria that pervert the reproduction of insects for their own ends. (Wolbachia can have a number of effects, but one of the most common is to kill all a female’s sons. The reason is that sons don’t transmit Wolbachia, so from Wolbachia’s point of view, they are a waste of space.) I’m not sure he’d enjoy analyzing DNA sequences — he might find it a bit too abstracted from the living organism — but I think he’d be delighted to learn the results. I think he would be shocked by how much we know about the so-called model organisms — worms, toads, fruit flies, mice, humans and the bacterium E. coli — and how little we know about everything else. And I think he’d be startled by the nature of scientific research — the scale of the enterprise, the cost, the pressures to publish and the degree of specialization that results. His brand of science — 20 years of thinking about a problem before publishing — could not be done today.

But I digress. To return to my argument: I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

It does not. In the years ahead, I predict we will continue to refine our understanding of natural selection, and continue to discover new ways in which it can shape genes and genomes. Indeed, as genetic data continues to flood into the databanks, we will be able to ask questions about the detailed workings of evolution that it has not been possible to ask before.

Yet all too often, evolution — insofar as it is taught in biology classes at all — is taught as the story of Charles Darwin. Then the pages are turned, and everyone settles down to learn how the heart works, or how plants make energy from sunshine, or some other detail. The evolutionary concepts that unify biology, that allow us to frame questions and investigate the glorious diversity of life — these are ignored.

Darwin was an amazing man, and the principal founder of evolutionary biology. But his was the first major statement on the subject, not the last. Calling evolutionary biology “Darwinism,” and evolution by natural selection “Darwinian” evolution, is like calling aeronautical engineering “Wrightism,” and fixed-wing aircraft “Wrightian” planes, after those pioneers of fixed-wing flight, the Wright brothers. The best tribute we could give Darwin is to call him the founder — and leave it at that. Plenty of people in history have had an -ism named after them. Only a handful can claim truly to have given birth to an entire field of modern science.

**********


The idea that organisms evolve from one another is settled science, the exact manner in which that occurs is anything but settled.

[SnakeBoy]

i asked because clearly the Bible and science are incompatible.


Only for a literalist. Let me ask you, when Father Georges Lemaitre proposed the big bang theory was it the church or the scientific community which rejected it as ridiculous?

[Blake]

Only for a literalist.

Do you believe in Jesus raising himself from the dead?



Let me ask you, when Father Georges Lemaitre proposed the big bang theory was it the church or the scientific community which rejected it as ridiculous?

I'm guessing it was the scientific community?

If true, it still doesn't mean that science will one day disprove macro evolution.

[SnakeBoy]

If true, it still doesn't mean that science will one day disprove macro evolution.

Goddamn your reading comprehension sucks.

[Blake]

Goddamn your reading comprehension sucks.

Instead of leaving me guessing, how about you explain what the point of your question is.

If I do have to guess though, my guess is that it's still going to be a logical fallacy.

[z0sa]

That's an old article but I doubt the smoking gun was discovered or we would have heard about it.

... the smoking gun is every field of biology. Everyone's heard about evolution. It perfectly fits the evidence.


Not necessarily.

I am not arguing against the concept of evolution as a whole, I'm just pointing out that the generally believed/taught version of evolution (aka Darwinism) is not correct.

Explain in detail where it's not correct, using examples.


The idea that organisms evolve from one another is settled science, the exact manner in which that occurs is anything but settled.

We are always learning more about how evolution occurs. But I'm afraid you seem to not know that "organisms evolving from one another" being settled science directly contradicts your previous statement that the generally believed and taught "version" of Darwinism is incorrect. It's not the be all end all, it's the first step to understanding an extremely complex science.

[rascal]

I am right, there is no life anywhere else in our Universe. Spin it however you like, but as of today, life on other planets does not exist.

Agree with this.

[ChumpDumper]

Agree with this.
How do you know?

[Koolaid_Man]

How do you know?

you must believe in God if you believe in the unseen.... :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

you must believe in God if you believe in the unseen.... :lmao
Not necessarily.

I believed in cellular structures before I saw them with my own eyes.

[Koolaid_Man]

Not necessarily.

I believed in cellular structures before I saw them with my own eyes.


:lmao cellular structures my ass....I just boxed you in and there's no way out...you believe in the unseen...that makes you just like me my friend :lmao

[RandomGuy]

I believe science will ultimately disprove the currently accepted theory of evolution. In other words, I don't believe that natural selection gradually leads to the development of new species. The fossil record clearly and repeatedly shows that at times life explodes with a great variety of new species. So some other genetic process must be occurring.

Clear enough now?

Life periodically "exploding at times with a great variety of new species" is perfectly consistent with the currently accepted theory of evolution, and the currently understood mechanics of natural selection.

Why do you think these events disprove the currently accepted theory?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao cellular structures my ass....I just boxed you in and there's no way out...you believe in the unseen...that makes you just like me my friend :lmao

Belief in something when you have good reasons to believe in something, such as the results of countless hours of study on the part of people who have dedicated their lives to empirically describing our universe is not equivalent to believing in something without good reasons, such as "I read it in the bible, which is the inerrant word of God, and therefore must be true"

One belief can be supported by some overwhelming evidence and working theories, one cannot.

Belief in the existence of cells, sight unseen > belief in chupacabras

I tend to use the word "trust" rather than belief for that reason. I have good reasons to trust scientists when they make claims, as they are experts in what they are studying.

I have very little reason to trust people who make a lot of dishonest claims, and present horribly flawed and fallacious arguments as justification for their claims and assertions.

[Koolaid_Man]

Belief in something when you have good reasons to believe in something, such as the results of countless hours of study on the part of people who have dedicated their lives to empirically describing our universe is not equivalent to believing in something without good reasons, such as "I read it in the bible, which is the inerrant word of God, and therefore must be true"

One belief can be supported by some overwhelming evidence and working theories, one cannot.

Belief in the existence of cells, sight unseen > belief in chupacabras

I tend to use the word "trust" rather than belief for that reason. I have good reasons to trust scientists when they make claims, as they are experts in what they are studying.

I have very little reason to trust people who make a lot of dishonest claims, and present horribly flawed and fallacious arguments as justification for their claims and assertions.

yet you still have no proof? theory is your God....I believe in God because of science :hat

[Blake]

yet you still have no proof? theory is your God....I believe in God because of science :hat

That doesn't make any sense

[Koolaid_Man]

That doesn't make any sense

only to the intellectually challenged...

[Rogue]

you must believe in God if you believe in the unseen.... :lmao
lol why? I don't believe in the unseen but I still believe in God whom Kobe is.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao cellular structures my ass....I just boxed you in and there's no way out...you believe in the unseen...that makes you just like me my friend :lmaoNope. The entirety of science is based on dealing with unknowns.

Fundamentalist religion is throwing up one's hands in the face of the unknown and saying "Welp, it's God. Let us never speak of it again."

[Koolaid_Man]

lol why? I don't believe in the unseen but I still believe in God whom Kobe is.

you're over due for a good ass kicking

[xmas1997]

Goddamn your reading comprehension sucks.

It always has, and it always will, and no one can compare.

[Blake]

It always has, and it always will, and no one can compare.

Oh good, then you can explain exactly what he was talking about.

Go.

[SnakeBoy]

Life periodically "exploding at times with a great variety of new species" is perfectly consistent with the currently accepted theory of evolution, and the currently understood mechanics of natural selection.

Why do you think these events disprove the currently accepted theory?

I don't. I think you missed where I corrected myself....


Earlier I said science would debunk this view of evolution, I should have said it already has.

Although I do believe that even current evolutionary theory will change dramatically in time. Take a look at this article that was posted earlier
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=13197168


This new work is an intriguing window into evolution, but like all good science, it also raises a number of questions. What's the triggering mechanism? What causes a daisy to make a "decision" about how to deploy, or eliminate, a specific gene?

"That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."



I think this type of discovery is only the tip of the iceberg and eventually the idea that evolution basically occurs out of random dumb luck will be rejected by science, just a hunch though. Of course such discoveries will only start whole new chapters in the intelligent design debate...it must be God turning those genes on and off :lol.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Koolaid is trolling and robdiaz is a moron. diaz knows next to nothing about evolution, but shit-talks it almost every chance he gets. He ignores the mountain of evidence that supports evolution, while propping up the existence of God based solely on his "faith" (i.e., nothing). He doesn't know what evolution is and he doesn't want to know. He's brainwashed, plain and simple.

[xmas1997]

Koolaid is trolling and robdiaz is a moron. diaz knows next to nothing about evolution, but shit-talks it almost every chance he gets. He ignores the mountain of evidence that supports evolution, while propping up the existence of God based solely on his "faith" (i.e., nothing). He doesn't know what evolution is and he doesn't want to know. He's brainwashed, plain and simple.

And you have this on good authority from Blake, right?
Good gosh, you are really reaching if he is your source.
:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

lol making shit up. I came to that conclusion based off their posting history, and having discussed the topic multiple times with them.

Your infatuation with Blake has nothing to do with this.

[Joseph Kony]

I'm starting to think rob doesn't believe any of this shit and is one of the most successful trolls in ST history. Nigga seems too real to be a legit jeebotard tbh

[Joseph Kony]

lol making shit up. I came to that conclusion based off their posting history, and having discussed the topic multiple times with them.

Your infatuation with Blake has nothing to do with this.

Faggot is obsessed with Blake for some reason imo he even randomly quotes people talking to Blake to discuss how he dislikes him even more :lol

[xmas1997]

I'm starting to think rob doesn't believe any of this shit and is one of the most successful trolls in ST history. Nigga seems too real to be a legit jeebotard tbh


A troll calling someone else a troll?
Go figure the odds on that happening.
That is close to being a double negative IMHO, which would mean that Rob is not a troll.
He should thank you for clarifying the issue.
:lol

[RD2191]

Rofl mountain of evidence. There is zero evidence of evolution. Zero.

[Joseph Kony]

A troll calling someone else a troll?
Go figure the odds on that happening.
That is close to being a double negative IMHO, which would mean that Rob is not a troll.
He should thank you for clarifying the issue.
:lol
eat a dick crusading faggot

:cry we're bashing the trolls! that'll show them! :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're replying to a known ignorant troll?
Blake knows the answer, but he can't troll you if he acts like he does.
He has to pretend God does not exist.
You should know this about Blake by now.
:lol


Thread is already turning to shit. Quit with your faggot god arguments.


someone needs to start another cosmos thread cuz this one has gone down the shitter


All threads here lead to the shitter bro.

Your fan club xmass. You post this shit and several people immediately come out and say that now this thread is in the shitter. You are a muse for sure. Bravo!

[Joseph Kony]

Your fan club xmass. You post this shit and several people immediately come out and say that now this thread is in the shitter. You are a muse for sure. Bravo!

:cry you're all part of a massive online group of troll friends! that's why we bash you! we're taking this forum down! :cry

[Bito Corleone]

And you have this on good authority from Blake, right?
Good gosh, you are really reaching if he is your source.
:lol
As an outsider I can say what Woo said was spot on - not sure why you'd think that assessment had to come from someone else as the source when it's easy for anyone to see. Kool is trolling, that much is obvious. robdiaz on the other hand is harder to pinpoint. He's either a master troll, or legitimately retarded. I hope he's trolling because it's hard to believe that anyone is that willfully ignorant.

[xmas1997]

As an outsider I can say what Woo said was spot on - not sure why you'd think that assessment had to come from someone else as the source when it's easy for anyone to see. Kool is trolling, that much is obvious. robdiaz on the other hand is harder to pinpoint. He's either a master troll, or legitimately retarded. I hope he's trolling because it's hard to believe that anyone is that willfully ignorant.

Very interesting assessment.
I applaud you, your reasoning abilities.
However, I have never known him to be a troll, and even less to be retarded or willfully ignorant, so there must be another explanation.

[Woo Bum-kon]

The proof that robdiaz is willfully ignorant is littered throughout this thread. In fact, every time diaz utters his stupid opinion on the matter, he demonstrates his ignorance. The guy is mouse-tier when it comes to having a discussion.

[JoeChalupa]

I believe in science religiously.

[xmas1997]

I believe in science religiously.

:lmao

[DMX7]

I believe in science religiously.

Unlike religion, science is true whether or not you believe in it.

[Joseph Kony]

Unlike religion, science is true whether or not you believe in it.

http://www.tytnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Vs-God.jpg

[DMX7]

http://www.tytnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Vs-God.jpg

Yes, sirrrrrrr.

[RD2191]

rofl, scrub ass dmx7 stealing quotes, neil is a beast though, I respect that dude unlike douchebag bill nye

[Joseph Kony]

rofl, scrub ass dmx7 stealing quotes, neil is a beast though, I respect that dude unlike douchebag bill nye

http://www.abombartgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Neil-Degrasse-Tyson.jpg

[RD2191]

http://www.abombartgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Neil-Degrasse-Tyson.jpg
:lol

[baseline bum]

Rob can't be liking this episode

[DMX7]

Oh man, Neil is really giving it to the creationists. This is just great.

[jeebus]

Tonight on Talking Cosmos, Neil has sex with multiple bitches on top of every holy book known to man.

[DMX7]

Go Neil! Stick a fork in the creationists!

[RD2191]

Lol. Evolution with zero evidence.

[DMX7]

On Fox local news in Houston, they are going to talk about the fact that evolution was covered in this "Cosmos" episode. I expect a one sided debate.

[DMX7]

Lol. Evolution with zero evidence.

60 minutes of complete humiliation for you.

[RD2191]

Missed the episode, but still zero proof. You can spin it however you would like but the evidence doesn't exist.

[baseline bum]

So far this is the best series I have ever seen on network TV.

[DMX7]

So far this is the best series I have ever seen on network TV.

The Elegant Universe (PBS) was excellent as well, but Brian Greene never went out of his way to bitch slap the creationists so overtly.

[RD2191]

so what happened in this episode? a fish walked onto land?:lmao

[DMX7]

so what happened in this episode? a fish walked onto land?:lmao

A scientifically unabashed destruction of creationism is what happened.

[baseline bum]

The Elegant Universe (PBS) was excellent as well, but Brian Greene never went out of his way to bitch slap the creationists so overtly.

If I was going to count PBS as network TV I would have gone with The Mechanical Universe. Too much analogy and speculation (e.g., string theory) in the Brian Greene stuff. None of the stuff like quantized energy levels, quantum tunneling, etc makes much sense without PDE.

TTmli_ZluyY

[RD2191]

A scientifically unabashed destruction of creationism is what happened.
I doubt it, where is the proof of evolution?

[RD2191]

Oh look we evolved, and so did the seeds, and plants, and animals! And it all happened by chance! It just so happens that it all worked out perfectly for life to survive! Those animals evolved perfectly to be cut into steaks! And the plants are edible! And the potatoes are oh so good! And and the soil is fertile for all of this to thrive! And look! Water from the sky to irrigate the plants! Of course this all happened by chance for no reason at all!

[DMX7]

Oh look we evolved, and so did the seeds, and plants, and animals! And it all happened by chance! It just so happens that it all worked out perfectly for life to survive! Those animals evolved perfectly to be cut into steaks! And the plants are edible! And the potatoes are oh so good! And and the soil is fertile for all of this to thrive! And look! Water from the sky to irrigate the plants! Of course this all happened by chance for no reason at all!

So what do you think we you see something like this?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-july-dec13-ancestry2_10-18/

6,000 years old? a fake?

[RD2191]

So what do you think we you see something like this?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-july-dec13-ancestry2_10-18/

6,000 years old? a fake?
Where are you getting 6,000 from? Oh that's right, you just go by what every other idiot thinks the Bible says. And how in any way does that skull prove that we evolved from an ape?

[DMX7]

Where are you getting 6,000 from? Oh that's right, you just go by what every other idiot thinks the Bible says. And how in any way does that skull prove that we evolved from an ape?

Where are you getting it from then? So are you an intelligent design idiot then? If we were intelligently designed, then the designer must not have been that intelligent because we're quite flawed on many levels (you illustrating this fact perfectly).

[RD2191]

Where are you getting it from then? So are you an intelligent design idiot then? If we were intelligently designed, then the designer must not have been that intelligent because we're quite flawed on many levels (you illustrating this fact perfectly).
How are we flawed? The Human body is an absolute marvel, why haven't scientist been able to create a better human? All scientist do is try to connect pieces of a made up puzzle. Oh look, we kinda look like apes so we must be their descendants. LOL. You can think, reason, feel love and kindness, even sadness, evolution did it. LOL

[DMX7]

How are we flawed? The Human body is an absolute marvel, why haven't scientist been able to create a better human? All scientist do is try to connect pieces of a made up puzzle. Oh look, we kinda look like apes so we must be their descendants. LOL. You can think, reason, feel love and kindness, even sadness, evolution did it. LOL

We're incredibly fragile, do I need to list the number of diseases capable of killing us? Why are we not immune to those? Why does God allow us to get cancer, go blind (of natural causes), go deaf of (natural causes), and so fourth. Why don't we all look exactly the same? Why are some people 7 feet tall and some people 5 feet tall, and so on and so fourth?

[RD2191]

We're incredibly fragile, do I need to list the number of diseases capable of killing us? Why are we not immune to those? Why does God allow us to get Cancer, go blind (of natural causes), go deaf of (natural causes), and so fourth. Why don't we all look exactly the same? Why are some people 7 feet tall and some people 5 feet tall, and so on a so fourth?
Long story short. God allows it because he wants to show humans that they can't rule themselves. Which of course is true. And I'm sure there are many different factors that contribute to our differences, I don't think the Bible covers it but I doubt that's a reason to say that we evolved from an ape.

[DMX7]

Long story short. God allows it because he wants to show humans that they can't rule themselves. Which of course is true. And I'm sure there are many different factors that contribute to our differences, I don't think the Bible covers it but I doubt that's a reason to say that we evolved from an ape.

Genetic mutations are constantly happening, and the ones that benefit us are more likely to thrive and proliferate, the ones that don't are less likely to. You're probably less attracted to someone who was born with an auto-immune disease than you are to someone much healthier looking. This is evolution taking it's course, it's not random or God. Over millions of years, it only natural that the best of qualities are going to produce something (in this case a human being) that is very good but not perfect. We are a marvel because of evolution and we are flawed because we not made by God -- not because God "wants to show humans that they can't rule themselves" which is ridiculous.

[DMX7]

Long story short. God allows it because he wants to show humans that they can't rule themselves. Which of course is true. And I'm sure there are many different factors that contribute to our differences, I don't think the Bible covers it but I doubt that's a reason to say that we evolved from an ape.

Then why are we constantly making incremental progress against fighting those diseases? Evolution is about progress, not perfection. By your logic, we shouldn't have been allowed to discover the polio vaccine, for instance.

[Bito Corleone]

I have never known him to be a troll, and even less to be retarded or willfully ignorant, so there must be another explanation.

Missed the episode, but still zero proof.
Care to take a shot at that other explanation?

[baseline bum]

LOL people arguing with robdiaz when he's the Club equivalent to Wild Cobra.

[DMX7]

LOL people arguing with robdiaz when he's the Club equivalent to Wild Cobra.

It's not an argument as much as it is a one-sided schooling.

[Relevancy]

Hopefully we know where we actually came from before we all die, I wish that to all of you. People say, well go find a religion and spend your whole life devoted to it only and you'll be at peace. Others say well go read a book or inform yourself from scientists blah blah.

Can you guys tell me how to find myself? My true self? I would like to do that because I know will find happiness.

[RD2191]

Genetic mutations are constantly happening, and the ones that benefit us are more likely to thrive and proliferate, the ones that don't are less likely to. You're probably less attracted to someone who was born with an auto-immune disease than you are to someone much healthier looking. This is evolution taking it's course, it's not random or God. Over millions of years, it only natural that the best of qualities are going to produce something (in this case a human being) that is very good but not perfect. We are a marvel because of evolution and we are flawed because we not made by God -- not because God "wants to show humans that they can't rule themselves" which is ridiculous.
This doesn't explain anything, and as far as schooling I don't see how. And don't all scientist claim that evolution has no purpose? Which is it? How is it ridiculous? How do you know that it isn't true? Because you believe everything happened by chance? Lol. Ridiculous. The Sun is the perfect distance to allow life on Earth, coincidence right?

[RD2191]

Then why are we constantly making incremental progress against fighting those diseases? Evolution is about progress, not perfection. By your logic, we shouldn't have been allowed to discover the polio vaccine, for instance.
Well because people aren't stupid, just because we can cure or treat some diseases doesn't mean that 1 day we will be able to rid ourselves of all diseases. Its impossible without God.

[DMX7]

The Sun is the perfect distance to allow life on Earth, coincidence right?

No, not a coincidence. A random event caused the sun to be a perfect distance from the Earth to allow life, and life on Earth was thus possible. Are you saying Earth was chosen by God to have life? Why didn't he put the sun the perfect distance from the other millions/billions of planets? Why did he choose Earth?...

[DMX7]

Well because people aren't stupid, just because we can cure or treat some diseases doesn't mean that 1 day we will be able to rid ourselves of all diseases. Its impossible without God.

So he allowed us to get diseases to prove we're not in control, but we're not stupid and so we can control some of the diseases? lol.. This God is not very bright, is he?

[SnakeBoy]

So far this is the best series I have ever seen on network TV.

Why do you say that? I've tried to watch it twice but both times it seemed more like a CG jerk fest rather than a good science show, so I quit watching pretty quick. Did I judge it too quickly?

[RD2191]

So he allowed us to get diseases to prove we're not in control, but we're not stupid and so we can control some of the diseases? lol.. This God is not very bright, is he?

You can read the Bible if you're interested. Don't think you can live your life without any judgement. Your day will come. And diseases are part of imperfection. We would live forever if we were perfect and without diseases or aging. But it happens. Why are you so afraid of God?

[RD2191]

No, not a coincidence. A random event caused the sun to be a perfect distance from the Earth to allow life, and life on Earth was thus possible. Are you saying Earth was chosen by God to have life? Why didn't he put the sun the perfect distance from the other millions/billions of planets? Why did he choose Earth?...

Random event. Lol.

[DMX7]

You can read the Bible if you're interested. Don't think you can live your life without any judgement. Your day will come. And diseases are part of imperfection. We would live forever if we were perfect and without diseases or aging. But it happens. Why are you so afraid of God?

Afraid, lol? I just implied that he is not very bright.

[DMX7]

Random event. Lol.

Happens all the time. You think that every star that goes supernova or every astroid that crashes into another astroid is directed by the hand of God?

[RD2191]

So it happens all the time and has been for billions of years and yet life only exist on Earth, hmmm. Solid reasoning.

[DMX7]

So it happens all the time and has been for billions of years and yet life only exist on Earth, hmmm. Solid reasoning.

Life only exists on Earth? That's quite an assertion. What is that based on? We've stepped foot on exactly zero other planets. How do you know?

[RD2191]

Life only exists on Earth? That's quite an assertion. What is that based on? We've stepped foot on exactly zero other planets. How do you know?
How do you know God doesn't exist? How do you know he isn't out there? If you believe in life on other planets how can you say God isn't on another planet?

[SnakeBoy]

Can you guys tell me how to find myself? My true self? I would like to do that because I know will find happiness.

Get a non-reversing mirror.

[Woo Bum-kon]

First define "God."

[DMX7]

How do you know God doesn't exist? How do you know he isn't out there? If you believe in life on other planets how can you say God isn't on another planet?

I didn't say I believe in life on other planets. I think there is probably life on other planets because the probability of there being life on other planets seems extraordinarily high given how big the universe is.

Life on this planet was made possible, in part, because the conditions were right. I can see life all around me and that is evidence that with the right conditions, life can exist. This leads me to believe that if there is a high probability of similar conditions exiting elsewhere in the universe that there is almost certainly life elsewhere too. I see no evidence of God on Earth or anywhere else, so I have no reason to believe that there is a God on another planet.

[baseline bum]

Why do you say that? I've tried to watch it twice but both times it seemed more like a CG jerk fest rather than a good science show, so I quit watching pretty quick. Did I judge it too quickly?

I think it's a good science show by network TV standards. It's obviously not going to go in depth into HR diagrams, the hairy details of nuclear fusion in stars, things like that, but if you're looking for that, this coursera course is surprisingly great despite being algebra based and not calculus based.
http://www.coursera.org/course/introastro

Or if you know all that stuff already, here's a real Caltech course on galaxies and cosmology if you know some ODE + classical mechanics + a little quantum physics + e&m + special relativity
https://www.coursera.org/course/cosmo

I guess you're turned off by the CGI, but I think it's pretty interesting to show the world things like the rings of Saturn being tons of tiny balls of ice or that the observed universe has filamentary symmetry at megaparsec scales. Or that parts of the universe can look completely different in the infrared spectrum as opposed to in visible light. I loved the contrast between evolution by artificial selection used to create the dog from the wolf vs evolution by natural selection creating the eye in tonight's episode. It's the best popular science I have seen on a major network. If you count PBS as one of the major networks though, the Mechanical Universe (which I posted an episode of above) would be my favorite scientific programming, though some of the episodes have too much history.

[IronMaxipad]

Why we still got treez

[TheRunningMan]

Show ain't shit without Carl Sagan. It'll have a nice run though.

[Blake]

Don't think you can live your life without any judgement. Your day will come.

So when yours comes, what will God say about your ungodly behavior on this messageboard?

[JoeChalupa]

All the science in the world has no effect om my faith. None.

[tlongII]

All the science in the world has no effect om my faith. None.

How sad.

[Relevancy]

Get a non-reversing mirror.
Well that was quite the answer, I'm not really sure how that its gonna help.

[Joseph Kony]

All the science in the world has no effect om my faith. None.
Just proves that you don't actually believe, you just really wanna believe there is a "point" to your existence (which is apparently worshiping a narcissistic being for all eternity :lol)

[Joseph Kony]

I mean seriously, you're basically saying motherfuckers could find indisputable 100% proof there is no god (obviously just a scenario) and you would still force yourself to believe there is just because you're, ultimately, afraid at an instinctual level, of death and have an immense desire for the continuation of your existence. really sad

[RandomGuy]

yet you still have no proof? theory is your God....I believe in God because of science :hat

What do I need proof of?

If you want proof that cells exist, there is more than enough evidence to be had, and working usable theories.

I can, and have seen for myself in classes and outside of them, evidence supporting the existance of cells.

Modern biology and medicine is predicated on this theory being correct, and the evidence we have gathered so far has confirmed, or been predicted by cell theory.

I guess you think you are being cute by trying to equate the two, or maybe they are even equal in your mind.

The only way that can be is if you really, truly don't even begin to understand the science and logical principles underpinning it. Yet another Donning-Kruger poster child, like the faked moon landing thread wasn't enough for the forum.

Would you say you have good reasons to believe in God? If so, what are they?

[DisAsTerBot]

Who knows tbh, Someone better versed in science may be able to answer that question.

:lmao

this should be your auto response for all questions directed at you tbh

[SnakeBoy]

I think it's a good science show by network TV standards. It's obviously not going to go in depth into HR diagrams, the hairy details of nuclear fusion in stars, things like that, but if you're looking for that, this coursera course is surprisingly great despite being algebra based and not calculus based.
http://www.coursera.org/course/introastro

Or if you know all that stuff already, here's a real Caltech course on galaxies and cosmology if you know some ODE + classical mechanics + a little quantum physics + e&m + special relativity
https://www.coursera.org/course/cosmo

I guess you're turned off by the CGI, but I think it's pretty interesting to show the world things like the rings of Saturn being tons of tiny balls of ice or that the observed universe has filamentary symmetry at megaparsec scales. Or that parts of the universe can look completely different in the infrared spectrum as opposed to in visible light. I loved the contrast between evolution by artificial selection used to create the dog from the wolf vs evolution by natural selection creating the eye in tonight's episode. It's the best popular science I have seen on a major network. If you count PBS as one of the major networks though, the Mechanical Universe (which I posted an episode of above) would be my favorite scientific programming, though some of the episodes have too much history.

Thanks. I recorded the first two episodes today on ngc, so I'll give it another shot. Maybe it's just the slow intro that I don't like.

[JoeChalupa]

How sad.

Why? Science has not proven God does not exist. Period

[JoeChalupa]

Just proves that you don't actually believe, you just really wanna believe there is a "point" to your existence (which is apparently worshiping a narcissistic being for all eternity :lol)

It proves that my faith is strong. Science hasn't proven there is no God. Carry on my wayward sons.

[Blake]

Why? Science has not proven God does not exist. Period

if your god is Bible god, I can pretty much prove Bible God does not exist.

[Clipper Nation]

Damn, Neil just shitting on the Jeebotards, you can tell from how salty and mad they all are :worthy:

[RD2191]

So anyone with evidence yet?......

[Blake]

So anyone with evidence yet?......

No, just go back to sleep, son.

[DMX7]

All the science in the world has no effect om my faith. None.

I feel sorry for you... genuinely sorry.

[ChumpDumper]

So anyone with evidence yet?......Of God?

Nope.

Let me know if you get any.

[InRareForm]

Great mix of CGI and INFO tbh... I learn something new everytime. ala the importance with the eye.

[SnakeBoy]

Well that was quite the answer, I'm not really sure how that its gonna help.

You wanted to find your true self. Get one, look into it, what you see will be the true you.

[Bill_Brasky]

How are we flawed? The Human body is an absolute marvel, why haven't scientist been able to create a better human? All scientist do is try to connect pieces of a made up puzzle. Oh look, we kinda look like apes so we must be their descendants. LOL. You can think, reason, feel love and kindness, even sadness, evolution did it. LOL
We breathe and eat out of the same hole. Really intelligent, flawless design right there.

[Koolaid_Man]

We breathe and eat out of the same hole. Really intelligent, flawless design right there.

Hello Mr. Dumbass...:lol

We use our god made lungs to breathe out of our nose. Breathing out of our mouths is nothing but a safety net in case the nose is stopped up :lol You're a neanderthal / caveman if you're a mouth breather...it's just like the concept of reading out loud :lol I mean who does that...

[Blake]

Long story short. God allows it because he wants to show humans that they can't rule themselves. Which of course is true.

Oh right, that would explain why he finally allowed kings to rule over Israel.

Why do you lie when you say you've studied the Bible since you were 9?

[Bill_Brasky]

Hello Mr. Dumbass...:lol

We use our god made lungs to breathe out of our nose. Breathing out of our mouths is nothing but a safety net in case the nose is stopped up :lol You're a neanderthal / caveman if you're a mouth breather...it's just like the concept of reading out loud :lol I mean who does that...
So all that anybody that's ever choked to death had to do was just breathe through their nose huh. I'm sure none of them thought of that.

[Koolaid_Man]

So all that anybody that's ever choked to death had to do was just breathe through their nose huh. I'm sure none of them thought of that.

I guess people really are as retarded as the pics in their avatar's....what does chocking have any GOTDAM thing to do with it.....there's a wind pipe and a lung pipe...make sure you dont get the two twixt...you've got to be a TOTAL and COMPLETE MORON with that type of logic...please put me on ignore dumb ass...please do...

[Bill_Brasky]

I guess people really are as retarded as the pics in their avatar's....what does chocking have any GOTDAM thing to do with it.....there's a wind pipe and a lung pipe...make sure you dont get the two twixt...you've got to be a TOTAL and COMPLETE MORON with that type of logic...please put me on ignore dumb ass...please do...

No need to be huffy. Just learn your basic anatomy home boy and you'll understand why you're wrong.

[Blake]

So all that anybody that's ever choked to death had to do was just breathe through their nose huh. I'm sure none of them thought of that.

Those fools that think they need a Heimlich

[russellgoat]

Why is this guy so famous in the US? Did he contributed something to science, or is he only famous because he is black?

[mrsmaalox]

No need to be huffy. Just learn your basic anatomy home boy and you'll understand why you're wrong.

:tu

[tlongII]

Why? Science has not proven God does not exist. Period

There is no scientific objective to prove God doesn't exist. God has no relevance in science. You need to prove that God does exist.

[tlongII]

What the hell is a lung pipe anyway?

[mrsmaalox]

What the hell is a lung pipe anyway?

It's a wind pipe :lol

[Relevancy]

You wanted to find your true self. Get one, look into it, what you see will be the true you.I mean emotionally, I need to be at peace with myself, accept my peers, and respect them.

[Koolaid_Man]

What the hell is a lung pipe anyway?

yall fuck faces know what I meant...food and wind pipe...dont be retarded

[tlongII]

yall fuck faces know what I meant...food and wind pipe...dont be retarded

There's an esophagus. And a wind pipe.

[mrsmaalox]

Wind pipe/lung pipe = trachea

[Blake]

yall fuck faces know what I meant...food and wind pipe...dont be retarded

I think it's incredibly efficient to be able to drink milk and then shoot it out your nose

[Koolaid_Man]

There's an esophagus. And a wind pipe.


what the fuck ever..bottom line is it wasn't produced by evolution....evolution cannot produce taste buds and make sex feel good....that's a product of design