Why Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creationism...

[Antlerman]

Why can't the workings of nature be based on creation? Give me an example of it.

They could be based on any hypothesis. What theory has the support of all the impartially corroborated evidence spanning multiple scientific disciplines and what does not is the true question?

If you need the warm pink fuzzy slippers story to take away all these big adult concerns, then this shouldn't be a question for you. Santa does exist and there will be milk and cookies for you in the morning, promise.

What are all these concerns that happen with evolution?

Creationism is not science. It has nothing whatsoever to offer that advances science. Never has. It is scientifically useless. It is however useful as a meaning-of-life mythology to find inspiration and comfort in for those who are interested in that for themselves.

 

The Theory of Evolution on the other hand has provided immeasurable benefits to the world through science in medicine, agriculture, etc by understanding the workings of the natural world. The only things that Creationism has offered to society are: Religious faith against reason, political battles, media sensations, ignorance of knowledge, and an embarrassment of this country before the entire world as it fights so hard to hang on to dressed-up medevial beliefs of mythology as science.

 

Let science be science and faith be faith. Is faith so weak, that it needs proof?? (Have yet to get an answer to this question from any Biblical literalist).

[Antlerman]

Ahh Sub.. I'm so disappointed in you. I just caught the rest of this thread that it was you impersonating someone else in starting this topic You make me so sad.

 

You have deeper problems than I ever imagined in all those thousands of mentally blocked posts of yours before. Such a sad life you must have to make you behave this way. No wonder you cling so desperately to your sky god belief.

 

 

[Ouroboros]

K, go...

Because even with Genesis and the Word Flood, you need evolution to account for the diversity of alleles. Evolution has to be true even if you believe in Creation. Creation can come or go, but Evolution has to stay.

 

Mutations are proven. You are a mix of your parents genes, with cross-overs and copy-errors, and it can be tested in a lab.

 

Survival and Selection has been observed and studied to no ends.

 

The mathematical principles of the process of evolution have been proven with computer software. Genetic Algortihms are used in real software/hardware today. So there's no doubt that the principles of mutations and most-fit-selection works, and even better than regular polynomial algoritms.

 

Creation doesn't make sense, since no one was there to witness it, and can't write a book about it. And since different religions have different accounts of the creation story, they don't add up. The Creation story can't be tested, verfied or falsified, and can't be more than a conjecture.

 

God can't be tested, even against "his rules" in "his holy book" to do so. = Closed System - accept or die, no testing allowed

 

Science, you can test, verify, peer review, agree and retest. = Open system - accept after testing

 

(I get the feeling we had a topic about this just recently...)

 

Of course, ban me just like the other boards do.

Not that I'm the slightest surprised.

[Asimov]

Analyzation of the basic Creationist assertions regarding reality:

 

1. That the Earth is 6,000-12,000 years old.

2. That Evolution does not occur as stated.

3. All life did not come from a common ancestor.

4. A Global Flood occured.

 

This is what we are talking about in regards to Creationism, sub_zer0, if you adhere to none of these then fuck off.[/b]

 

Such hostility always from you Asimov. I remember reading how the hostility on this board had gone down, but apparently not in your case.

 

I believe in all 4 of those. Now why does evolution make more sense than creationism.

 

You still don't know that I believ in those Asimov?

 

Of course I'm hostile, you're an ignorant fuck. In my case, I'm hostile when I think it's necessary and when I want to be.

 

1. It's been established that the Earth is more than 6,000-12,000 years old.

2. There is no dichotomy between God creating the universe and evolution being true.

3. We can establish with a reasonable conclusion that based on the evidence life has come from a common ancestor. Basic evidences include the study of genetics and the relationships between species, genera, family, etc.

4. A global flood did not occur.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Of course I'm hostile, you're an ignorant fuck. In my case, I'm hostile when I think it's necessary and when I want to be.

 

1. It's been established that the Earth is more than 6,000-12,000 years old.

2. There is no dichotomy between God creating the universe and evolution being true.

3. We can establish with a reasonable conclusion that based on the evidence life has come from a common ancestor. Basic evidences include the study of genetics and the relationships between species, genera, family, etc.

4. A global flood did not occur.

 

1. provide proof/evidence.

2. provide proof/evidence.

3. provide proof/evidence/studies, something.

4. provide proof/evidence.

 

But really, let's go with number 2 or 3 please.

[Lycorth]

So many mis-conceptions to justify it in your head.

 

No, reasoned logic. Trying to sound like a cold, dismissive Atheist doesn't make your arguments seem more logical.

 

We did sin,

 

We did not sin because sin does not exist.

 

because we have free will (as in not doing Gods explicit will).

 

The will of your god is only explicit in a confusing book of fables and absurdities. That is not explicit; if it were explicit, we'd see evidence of it in nature.

 

We are not worthless but a prized creation by God, we are made in His image.

 

Doublespeak. If we are not worthless, then why do we need Jeezus'™ death to redeem us? If sin makes us in need of this blood, then we are worthless in the eyes of your god. Furthermore, if we were worth anything, your god would eradicate all evil and the devil so our souls would be safe. If Jeezus™ existed (which he did not), his so-called "sacrifice" (which is no sacrifice) is unecessary.

 

And it is not possible to be made in the image of your god, since one entity cannot have multiple appearances at once.

 

God LOVED us so much He sent His Son to DIE for us. He didn't die for us because He hated us, but because He LOVED us.

 

No, he hates us so much that unless we believe in the unsubstantiated, illogical, phony sacrifice of Jeezus™ we will be tortured eternally. How is unbelief a crime worthy of eternal damnation? If your god loved us, he'd eradicate evil. But there would be no point to Xianity without that, eh?

 

We are the story, we act it out, so to blame God for the state of humanity is rather lame.

 

No one is blaming your god for humanity's failings. It is rather lame to blame the devil and lack of faith for the prevalence of evil in the world, as Xianity encourages.

 

You just said what Satan wanted all along, for you all to believe that through evolution you have become almost gods.

 

Satan is a mythical being who only exists in stories. Therefore there is no will of his for us to express. Please prove he is real.

 

You see, evolution is not just improvment and adaptation or being at natures merce because those elements fit quite nicely into the creation model and frankly have to make huge strides (impossibility) to evolve.

 

I don't think evolution and creationism need to be at odds. But I do not define "creationism" as being the Xian model. I just think the Xian myth of creation is unscientific and is incompatible with evolution.

[Asimov]

Of course I'm hostile, you're an ignorant fuck. In my case, I'm hostile when I think it's necessary and when I want to be.

 

1. It's been established that the Earth is more than 6,000-12,000 years old.

2. There is no dichotomy between God creating the universe and evolution being true.

3. We can establish with a reasonable conclusion that based on the evidence life has come from a common ancestor. Basic evidences include the study of genetics and the relationships between species, genera, family, etc.

4. A global flood did not occur.

 

1. Radiometric dating corroborating the non-isochron dating methods have shown that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

 

Dating methods include:

K-Ar dating

Ar-Ar dating

Uranium-lead dating

Rubidium-Strontium dating

 

Non isochron dating methods:

Ice cores

Dendrochronology

 

2. Science does not make any suppositions regarding supernatural entities, supernatural origins, or anything that cannot fit into the methodological naturalistic philosophy of empiricism. Therefore, to conclude that evolution and christianity are mutually exclusive bears no basis in reality, just as there is no mutually exclusive relationship between any science and God.

 

3.

1. Protein functional redundancy

2. DNA functional redundancy

3. Transposons

4. Redundant pseudogenes

5. Endogenous retroviruses

 

Transitional forms

 

1. Reptile-birds

2. Reptile-mammals

3. Ape-humans

4. Legged whales

5. Legged seacows

 

4. No evidence has been presented that suggests a global flood has occured. No working model as to how a global flood could have occured has been presented.

 

Evidence to suggest that a global flood did not occur:

 

Paleosols

Fossilized forests

White cliffs in Dover

Fossilized termite nests

[Ouroboros]

1. It's been established that the Earth is more than 6,000-12,000 years old.

 

1. provide proof/evidence.

 

Hundreds of thousands of layers in the antarctic ice core. Each layer from summer (thawed)/winter (frozen), so they equal one year each.

 

The one here: http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/News____9220.aspx is 740,000 years continuous "year rings". And they're not at the bottom yet.

 

So even if you make up some bogus idea that it freeze and thaws several times a year, let say 20 times a year, you still end up with 37,000, which is longer than your bible story.

 

The only way to make the bible to be "true" is either to admit the earth is much older, or that your God purposely made the ice that way to fool us. Which is a sign of a deceitful god, not the god of love and truth that you claim he is.

[Antlerman]

The only way to make the bible to be "true" is either to admit the earth is much older, or that your God purposely made the ice that way to fool us. Which is a sign of a deceitful god, not the god of love and truth that you claim he is.

I lean to purposely decieved us. That's the only way to reconcile the Bible as science with the observable world.

[Thurisaz]

We all have the same evidence, what is your point?

 

Wrong, fundie brat. We may observe the same things, but they are evidence for science, not for your dogma.

I've read all your cretinist/IDiot lies. I've read all that is out there coming from you jebus zombies. Especially for you, this means that I know both sides' POVs. And guess what? You christains have nothing. Well, nothing but lies, intentional misinterpretations et cetera ad nauseam.

 

You know, it's not shameful to have no real faith, like you and all the other cretinists/IDiots. Shit happens. Desperately trying to lie to yourself is another thing, but as long as it involves only you, fine with me.

Trying to force your lies and shitty dogma upon others because you just can't stand hearing them talk truth to you is one of the worst abominations there can be out there.

 

Wanna take my advice? No? Well, I'll give it to you anyway:

 

Be a man! Show some decency, show some honor. That way, we might start to respect you some day. Maybe not like you, but at least respect you. Honesty earns you respect. Instead of babbling endlessly "there's so much proof for cretinism/IDiocy (that not even I do believe, but I can't tell you that)", be honest and say "I can't be sure that I'm right". That's what a grown-up human should do.

 

Got the message?

 

 

So many mis-conceptions to justify it in your head.

 

Aaaah, the irony...

 

...God LOVED us so much He sent His Son to DIE for us. He didn't die for us because He hated us, but because He LOVED us....

 

Ah, worthless dogma.

 

A loving deity wouldn't leave us in this shit. Furthermore, it wouldn't permit that we ever end up in this shit to begin with.

C'mon fundie brat, let the tired old mantra be heard about nonsensical free will et al! With every word you provide more evidence for (fundie) christians being worthless sacks of excrement, especially where the brain area is concerned.

 

...evolution is not just improvment and adaptation or being at natures merce because those elements fit quite nicely into the creation model and frankly have to make huge strides (impossibility) to evolve.

 

Aaaaah, right on! Display to all the world your utter ignorance of evolutionary theory! Cry out to all "I'm such a dork!" and provide yet more evidence for "us" to point at and say "see? That could happen to you if you come in close contact with the wholly babble!"...

 

Your belief about evolution and the afterlife is based on faith just like mine is.

 

Too bad that there's a difference between religious faith and faith in something that hasn't been proven 100 % but is supported by a mountain of evidence large enough to be seen from Pluto, eh?

 

 

Of course, ban me just like the other boards do.

 

Boo-fucking-hoo.

 

Welcome to the real world outside your nice lil' black'n'white fundierama, where Hic Rhodos, hic salta! is a principle of life.

 

You behave like an arsehole, you're treated like an arsehole. Truth hurts. Get over it.

 

1. provide proof/evidence.

2. provide proof/evidence.

3. provide proof/evidence/studies, something.

4. provide proof/evidence.

 

Pot... kettle...

Pot... kettle...

Pot... kettle...

Pot... kettle...

 

[Ouroboros]

Good. I have no signs of schizofrenia.

[scitsofreaky]

Good. I have no signs of schizofrenia.

Hmm, maybe I should take that test.

[Ouroboros]

One observation I have made is that religiously fanatical people can oftentimes fail a test like this - hearing voices, invisible friends, being able to predict the future (prophecy), living your life different than you otherwise would because of superstitions, etc, etc....

I noticed it too. When I did the test, I was thinking how I would have answered before, and the result would not have been a clear.

[Antlerman]

Good. I have no signs of schizofrenia.

Hmm, maybe I should take that test.

One observation I have made is that religiously fanatical people can oftentimes fail a test like this - hearing voices, invisible friends, being able to predict the future (prophecy), living your life different than you otherwise would because of superstitions, etc, etc.... What got me thinking about it were the multiple personailities this person was exhibiting. Dunno, just made me go hmmmmmm.

 

You are right. Religious experiences and schizophrenia are often very closely related. Schizophrenics can be extraordinarily convincing in their delusions. It has been suggested many times that many of the great religious figures of history were likely schizophrenics. This would not be a great surprise. Image how many more messiahs there would be today if not for modern institutions and psychiatric drugs?

 

Edit: BTW. multiple personalities are not part of schizophrenia. It's another disease.

[Friendly Misanthrope]

multiple personalities are not part of schizophrenia. It's another disease.

 

Off topic yet again (There is probably a special place in hell for people like me). I think this has to do a little with the name schizophrenia, which I feel is a bit of a misnomer. It comes from the Greek, roughly translating to "split mind", or "fragmented mind". Many people seem to be under the misapprehension that mulitple personality disorder and schizophrenia are similar, if not the same.

[KT45]

Well I don't completely understand evolution very well. But I understand Natural Selection. I can understand how over time natural selection can become evolution. So evolution seems plausible. But again I'm just a layman concerning the subject.

[Mr. Neil]

If anyone actually wants to know why you rarely see me on this site anymore, it's because of morons like this person. People like Sub Zero are simply incapable of providing the level of intellectual stimulation I require to remain interested.

 

Honestly, Subby. Let's look at some of your braindead responses.

 

We all have the same evidence, what is your point?

No! Evidence is not a "we" thing. Evidence is not free to be interpretted willy-nilly any way you want. Evidence is to be interpretted by the standard of what is actually observed.

 

What do we observe about biology? We observe that genetic mutation occurs at every generation. We observe that occaisionally mutations provide a slightly better chance for survival. And we observe that the most fit genetic makeup survives to the next generation. Thus everything that is needed for evolution occurs.

 

But that's basic evolution. You're probably thinking of evolution on the grand scale, because like most creationists, you're so lost in your apologetic way of thinking that you can't help but treat evolution as though it should be a story of Earth history, much in the same way Genesis attempts to be a story.

 

Either that, or you'll try that old micro/macro evolution canard, as though there are different kinds of evolution. Woe to ye who has the misfortune of repeating that sorry argument. The person who thought that one up clearly didn't understand what evolution is, because evolution is mechanism of biology, and there's only ONE kind. The theory goes like this: allele frequencies change in a population over time. There isn't any other kind of evolution than that. If you try to argue otherwise, you will be immediately guilty of attempting to construct a strawman.

 

The "macro" scale diversity, in which species become non-interbredable, is brought on by two or more population isolated from each other, that continue to evolved in separately, because they're separate populations. This separation of populations is what causes the "macro" scale diversity, but the process getting there is the same, regardless.

 

Contrary to what you might be thinking, it's not evolution's job to describe all of biological history. That is better left to paleontology. Of course, if you're anything like most creationists, you probably don't know the difference or you assume that paleontology is just a sub-category of evolution. Yes, I'm projecting a lot of assumption upon you, but I'm also familiar enough with creationist ignorance that most of what I say is probably dead-on.

 

However, evolution is a very good context to use when comparing the genetics of primates with humans. As it turns out, not only are genetic makeups 95 to 98% identical between humans and chimps, but we also share a lot of the same junk DNA. We have nearly identical andogenous retroviruses common in our DNA.

 

And guess what! Since we know the behavior of genetics and we know how it copies itself from on generation to the next, it is entirely logical to assume common ancestory between two species that have very common genetics but have diversified beyond the point of interbredding.

 

You see, evolution actually teaches us something about how life on this planet works. It's a mechanism of genetics. We can predict it. It's good science.

 

Creation, on the other hand, doesn't tell us anything about the world, except "God did it". Well, that assertion, even if true, does not rule out evolution. You just assume that God wouldn't use evolution, because evolution doesn't happen to jibe with your chosen mythology.

 

"God did it" isn't useful, it's not applicable, and it's basically a non sequitur. You're attempting to answer with "who" when the question was "how".

 

No evolution clearly shows/teaches that it is all about struggle for survival, there is no afterlife and a persons conciousness is gone forever after death.

Spoken like a true asshole!

 

Evolution makes no such claims. Evolution describes a mechanism of genetics. The theory of evolution is that allele frequencies change in a population over time. The fact that you didn't know this undermines your entire criticism, and thus you stand exposed to the world for being an ignorant troll that chose to pick a fight he couldn't win.

 

Just because science doesn't have the answer to EVERYTHING you want to shit on it.....And when science doesn have some answers....you choose to not believe it anyway. Quit expecting science to have all the answers and then trashing the answers in the same breath.

Thank you for taking my position on science as it relates to the Bible.

 

When science can't prove the Bible you choose not to believe it anyway. Exactly my point quit expecting science to have all the answers.

 

Your belief about evolution and the afterlife is based on faith just like mine is.

Ah, here you demonstrate that you didn't understand anything that Raven was saying to you. The whole point of science is that we don't know everything. Science is about learning. It's not about being omniscient.

 

To accuse someone of relying on science to provide answers, as though that's a bad thing, is basically attacking a person for relying on the processes by which we learn things. We appeal to evidence because we have to. Technically, everything we do in life to function is scientific, because we rely on testability and repeatability to enable us to function in the world around us. If we did not make this simple appeal, then we'd be incapable of functioning as human beings.

 

Certainly you see the absurdity of your fingerpointing. But then again, probably not. You'll probably continue to bemoan the reliance humans have on science, unaware of the irony that you're using the internet, a mass communication system that relies on computer and space technology (and thus science) to even function.

 

-----

 

 

Well, I think that's about enough. I see the rest of your posts are filled with whining and you sticking your fingers in your ears. Of course, I don't expect an intelligent response from you. I just wanted to lay in my own version of why you're a fucking tool and are in absolutely in no position to criticize modern biology, of which I've shown that you know absolutely 0%.

 

See ya.

[Fweethawt]

Now that's the kind of 'BAM!' that would make Emeril proud!

 

 

Mr. Neil

Kickin' it up a notch since 1847

 

[scitsofreaky]

God damn I miss you around here Mr.Neil, I always learn something useful when you post.

[Fweethawt]

God damn I miss you around here Mr.Neil, I always learn something useful when you post.

Yep!

 

Seems like with every post that he makes concerning this particular subject (evolution'n such), he ends up creating a neater little "package" of information that allows such a topic to become a lot clearer to those who don't fully understand the ins'n outs of the whole thing.

[Mr. Neil]

Just doing mah job.

[Fweethawt]

Just doing mah job.

Duzzat meen yu ain't quitted yet?

[Mr. Neil]

I'll continue to stop by. There's always just cause to slay ignorance, but I'm done humoring creationists. I consider my services mostly educational (with just a side of sarcastic wit).

 

What I hope you guys realize from this is that you don't have to argue point-by-point about the fossil record with these clowns, nor do you have to play the micro/macro game. They want to argue evolution, so give them the theory of evolution (allele frequencies change in a population over time). Chances are extremely good that they're not going to know what it is or what it means, so you have an immediate advantage.

 

The irony, that I hope you all see, is that evolution is the least of the creationist's problems. Evolution simply gives us a context with which to understand the survivability of other organisms, particularly those that mutate very quickly, such as crop destroying instects, staph germs, and the AIDS virus.

 

What the creationists actually have a problem with is everything else in science besides evolution. They disagree with paleontology, because those dastardly paleontologists are the ones always coming up with those extended Earth ages and using evolution as a context for the order of species that they find.

 

Whether they realize it or not, they disagree with Einstein, because they talk about God creation the universe out of nothing, but what they don't realize is that time is realitive the speed of an atom. When a creationist tries to suggest that there was an act of creation, which implies that there was time prior to the existence of the universe (i.e., prior to the existence of the first atom). This is a paradox, and thus you're free to laugh at him for it.

 

Creationism is scientific illiteracy.

[KT45]

If anyone actually wants to know why you rarely see me on this site anymore, it's because of morons like this person. People like Sub Zero are simply incapable of providing the level of intellectual stimulation I require to remain interested.

 

Honestly, Subby. Let's look at some of your braindead responses.

 

We all have the same evidence, what is your point?

No! Evidence is not a "we" thing. Evidence is not free to be interpretted willy-nilly any way you want. Evidence is to be interpretted by the standard of what is actually observed.

 

What do we observe about biology? We observe that genetic mutation occurs at every generation. We observe that occaisionally mutations provide a slightly better chance for survival. And we observe that the most fit genetic makeup survives to the next generation. Thus everything that is needed for evolution occurs.

 

But that's basic evolution. You're probably thinking of evolution on the grand scale, because like most creationists, you're so lost in your apologetic way of thinking that you can't help but treat evolution as though it should be a story of Earth history, much in the same way Genesis attempts to be a story.

 

Either that, or you'll try that old micro/macro evolution canard, as though there are different kinds of evolution. Woe to ye who has the misfortune of repeating that sorry argument. The person who thought that one up clearly didn't understand what evolution is, because evolution is mechanism of biology, and there's only ONE kind. The theory goes like this: allele frequencies change in a population over time. There isn't any other kind of evolution than that. If you try to argue otherwise, you will be immediately guilty of attempting to construct a strawman.

 

The "macro" scale diversity, in which species become non-interbredable, is brought on by two or more population isolated from each other, that continue to evolved in separately, because they're separate populations. This separation of populations is what causes the "macro" scale diversity, but the process getting there is the same, regardless.

 

Contrary to what you might be thinking, it's not evolution's job to describe all of biological history. That is better left to paleontology. Of course, if you're anything like most creationists, you probably don't know the difference or you assume that paleontology is just a sub-category of evolution. Yes, I'm projecting a lot of assumption upon you, but I'm also familiar enough with creationist ignorance that most of what I say is probably dead-on.

 

However, evolution is a very good context to use when comparing the genetics of primates with humans. As it turns out, not only are genetic makeups 95 to 98% identical between humans and chimps, but we also share a lot of the same junk DNA. We have nearly identical andogenous retroviruses common in our DNA.

 

And guess what! Since we know the behavior of genetics and we know how it copies itself from on generation to the next, it is entirely logical to assume common ancestory between two species that have very common genetics but have diversified beyond the point of interbredding.

 

You see, evolution actually teaches us something about how life on this planet works. It's a mechanism of genetics. We can predict it. It's good science.

 

Creation, on the other hand, doesn't tell us anything about the world, except "God did it". Well, that assertion, even if true, does not rule out evolution. You just assume that God wouldn't use evolution, because evolution doesn't happen to jibe with your chosen mythology.

 

"God did it" isn't useful, it's not applicable, and it's basically a non sequitur. You're attempting to answer with "who" when the question was "how".

 

No evolution clearly shows/teaches that it is all about struggle for survival, there is no afterlife and a persons conciousness is gone forever after death.

Spoken like a true asshole!

 

Evolution makes no such claims. Evolution describes a mechanism of genetics. The theory of evolution is that allele frequencies change in a population over time. The fact that you didn't know this undermines your entire criticism, and thus you stand exposed to the world for being an ignorant troll that chose to pick a fight he couldn't win.

 

Just because science doesn't have the answer to EVERYTHING you want to shit on it.....And when science doesn have some answers....you choose to not believe it anyway. Quit expecting science to have all the answers and then trashing the answers in the same breath.

Thank you for taking my position on science as it relates to the Bible.

 

When science can't prove the Bible you choose not to believe it anyway. Exactly my point quit expecting science to have all the answers.

 

Your belief about evolution and the afterlife is based on faith just like mine is.

Ah, here you demonstrate that you didn't understand anything that Raven was saying to you. The whole point of science is that we don't know everything. Science is about learning. It's not about being omniscient.

 

To accuse someone of relying on science to provide answers, as though that's a bad thing, is basically attacking a person for relying on the processes by which we learn things. We appeal to evidence because we have to. Technically, everything we do in life to function is scientific, because we rely on testability and repeatability to enable us to function in the world around us. If we did not make this simple appeal, then we'd be incapable of functioning as human beings.

 

Certainly you see the absurdity of your fingerpointing. But then again, probably not. You'll probably continue to bemoan the reliance humans have on science, unaware of the irony that you're using the internet, a mass communication system that relies on computer and space technology (and thus science) to even function.

 

-----

 

 

Well, I think that's about enough. I see the rest of your posts are filled with whining and you sticking your fingers in your ears. Of course, I don't expect an intelligent response from you. I just wanted to lay in my own version of why you're a fucking tool and are in absolutely in no position to criticize modern biology, of which I've shown that you know absolutely 0%.

 

See ya.

That was the most intelligent post I've ever seen on a message board ever

Do you have any books on the subject for extremely ignorant but willing to learn people about evolution? I don't care if it's a fucking kids book I just want to learn

[Mr. Neil]

That was the most intelligent post I've ever seen on a message board ever

Do you have any books on the subject for extremely ignorant but willing to learn people about evolution? I don't care if it's a fucking kids book I just want to learn

Oh come on. There are more intelligent people on this board than me. Right? RIGHT?!

 

Seriously, though, I'm just a cartoonist, and I stay on top of science as a means of applying it to the things I write about. Naturally, I also do it out of self interest. I find biology particularly fascinating.

 

I've found that the best way to make sense of evolution is to think of it as a process first and a context second. That is, you should think of evolution as a mechanism biological change before you go trying to apply it to the fossil record.

 

I think one of the problems that even non-Christians fall into is that they think of paleontology as though it's part of evolutionary biology. Even Science Channel has gotten into the habit of naming their Monday night block "Evolutionary", when in fact they seldom talk about the actual mechanism of evolution. They usually have programs about prehistoric animals, and they might even mention evolution, but they're not really talking about what evolution actually is and how it occurs.

 

In order to truly understand evolution, I think we need to forget for a moment about trying to figure out what evolved from what and try to understand what evolution is as a process.

 

There are plenty of resources at your disposal. You can start with talkorigins.org and their 29+ Evidences article. As far as books, I would recommend pretty much anything by either Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins. On the other hand, if you want a crash course, I suggest listening to Evolution 101.