Any person or scientist who claims to pursue truth has to take notice of the astounding research available. Evolution will be seen as the shamanism of age.
October 12, 2014
The vampire squid is a living fossil. It’s the only known surviving member of Vampyromorphida, an order that existed before the split between 10-limbed squid and 8-legged octopuses. In fact, there are fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old look “virtually indistinguishable” from the species today.
October 9, 2014
citizen22 said: Do you find it interesting that these topics which turn into the battle grounds for atheists and believers are on the cusp of our scientific knowledge? I mean were are the flat earth Christians or the earth is the centre of the universe Christians?
Yes, that is my complaint; instead of “lets respect each others opinions and learn together” which would promote new thought, it’s “let’s be bombastic, and claim to have the corner on truth.” which kills advancement. (Im not certain where you are going with flat earth or centrists?)
Anonymous said: 1) Let's get this clear. Only 15% of Americans accept evolution. This is not a majority. 2) There is no evidence for creationism. You seem to have an unclear understanding of science: science is the observation and understanding of the natural world, the OBSERVABLE world. Whether or not there is a god is a metaphysical question which has nothing to do with science. There is no grand conspiracy of scientists trying to fix the system or ignoring evidence. Evolution is the best poss. explanation.
“Let’s get this clear” sounds pretty demanding. Okay mommy?
According to this Wikipedia article 48% of religious people claim support to evolution. And according to the National Center for Science Education the number has hovered between 39% and 53% for evolution.
A FASEB poll, (found that it depends on how you ask the question) researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of “all living things” and found that 61 percent accepted that “all living things have evolved over time.” src
2) There is plenty of evidence against evolution and there is evidence for creationism. However, modern science has 100 years of gaining control of power structures that mostly refuse to objectively debate the issues. 95% of scientists believe in evolution. That is a majority. I happen to believe they are wrong and want to hear more from the 5%. Evolution is the best possible solution because you have been told it is. Complexity coming from nothing makes a lot less sense than coming from a designer.
Technically, nothing to complexity is exactly what creationists believe too..
Nothing… then suddenly life as complex as today’s comes into being.
Also, I must concede with you that many people would say that a god creating everything as it is does “make more sense.” If it didn’t, why would it have lasted so long? It is the belief of people who desire a straightforward answer for the world around them.
However, evolution’s evidence is more observable. Just because something is complex now, does not mean it was the same way when the world began. I would rather be able to see fossils of extinct animals, read experiments in which people force evolution, and study logical processes (because evolution is a logical progression of life) than have faith in a god I do not subscribe to. And I am sure that many other evolutionists feel the same way.
My problem is that there is observable science available for Creation, but no major investment in it’s study. Either it’s Christian wackos who have little interest in science and more interest in conversion, or the flawed, bastardized mainstream community spewing out the same old “science”.
October 1, 2014
Why are human faces so unique?
What’s in a face? The amazing variety of human faces — far greater than that of most other animals — is the result of evolutionary pressure to make each of us unique and easily recognizable, according to a new study out of UC Berkeley.
Behavioral ecologist Michael J. Sheehan explains that our highly visual social interactions are almost certainly the driver of this evolutionary trend. Many animals use smell or vocalization to identify individuals, making distinctive facial features unimportant, especially for animals that roam after dark, he said. But humans are different.
In the study, Sheehan and coauthor Michael Nachman asked, “Are traits such as distance between the eyes or width of the nose variable just by chance, or has there been evolutionary selection to be more variable than they would be otherwise; more distinctive and more unique?”
As predicted, the researchers found that facial traits are much more variable than other bodily traits, such as the length of the hand, and that facial traits are independent of other facial traits, unlike most body measures. People with longer arms, for example, typically have longer legs, while people with wider noses or widely spaced eyes don’t have longer noses. Both findings suggest that facial variation has been enhanced through evolution.
“Genetic variation tends to be weeded out by natural selection in the case of traits that are essential to survival,” Nachman said. “Here it is the opposite; selection is maintaining variation. All of this is consistent with the idea that there has been selection for variation to facilitate recognition of individuals.”
Or facial variation has been enhanced by design…
August 10, 2014