(Asking a question that only makes sense to those who don't understand evolution is not particularly clever. I find it embarrassing.)

Imagine a population of prehistoric tree-climbing smurflets.

Imagine something divides the population into two, perhaps a volcano erupted and left a valley between two places inhabited by prehistoric smurflets.

Over a few ten or hundred thousandor years, the two populations of prehistoric smurflets developed differently, resulting in two species, one walking on four legs and eating grass (grasslets), the other walking on two with blue skin and hunting insects (smurfs). When the original population was divided all prehistoric smurflets were light-skinned and climbed trees. (But climbing trees was no longer possible after the volcano eruption and new ways to find food won over the old.)

Both the four-legged grasslets and the blue smurfs have a line going back to the prehistoric smurflets. But the prehistoric smurflets are not a "transitional species" between the two. They are not a "link" but a common ancestor. And they are not "missing", they are merely long dead.

Good job, Leauki.  But for those who still don't understand, evolution is an adaptation.  So, when the tree climbing smurflets were divided, one group wondered into low grasslands, the other into lands with trees.  In one case no need to mate with those who were able to rise up and grab, in the other case, rising up to grab was a very useful thing.  Natural selection does the eaons of work in very slow increments selecting for that which is most adaptive to an environment and avoid those who are not. 

In another blog on this topic I highly recommended people actually read Darwin, especially his Descent of Man.  I really don't think many peopla actually read primary sources anymore.  A pity really.  It leaves them so vulnerable to shucksters.

Be well.

I am telling you a true scientist asks "What if?" For every thesis, there is an antithesis......Either rape is a pleasant experience for all involved or it isn't. If it isn't than 1/4 of a million women a year (according to UN) are doomed to suffer....If it is, we have hope and a destiny......what do you chose? suffering or Hope?

I am telling you a true scientist asks "What if?" For every thesis, there is an antithesis......Either the artillery shells bounce off of us harmlessless, or they kill. If they kill us then we are doomed to dust. If they don't then we have hope and a destiny......what do you chose? dust or Hope?

PS. You could really alter such a statement with any other thing besides rape and invulnerability, it is as retarded in all of them.

It is a fallacy, and stupid one at that.

Yes, a valid point and something I have often said myself.

Don't read about Darwin's theory, read Darwin's theory.

Don't read about the Talmud, read the Talmud.

Don't read about Islam, read the Quran.

That is the issue about new species. There is no point at which one species becomes another, instead two populations become more different over time and after individuals from one population cannot reliably mate with individuals of the other population, we know (actually claim or define) that the two populations are two species. (Note that the two populations are two species relative to each other, but neither living population is a new species relative to the dead ancestor population.)

The fact that there is no point at which one species becomes another is something very difficult to comprehend for some. And this leads to two things, the question about one species becoming another (which doesn't make sense in Darwin's theory) and the claim that evolution doesn't cross the species border (the micro-evolution/macro-evolution fairy tale which is based on a border between species that does not exist in Darwin's theory).

One species does not change into another according to Darwin just as German never changed to English. Instead both current species derive directly from a common ancestor with no clear border ever crossed on the long path.

Asking when German became English shows ignorance of linguistics just asasking when one species became another shows ignorance of biology.

And stating that a species stops evolving before it becomes another species is as dumb as stating that the language spoken by Saxons 2000 years ago never did evolve into modern English.

It is telling that Creationists only arguments against Darwinism are based on not only a profound ignorance of Darwin's theory but also on the arrogance that knowledge of the subject at hand is not required to dismiss a theory.

And while Darwin's theory can be tested in labs (two populations of fruit flies do indeed evolve into two distinct species of fruit flies free to change into whatever they will if left alone for two million years), Creationists have never proposed how even to test Creationism in a lab.

Darwinists can watch animal populations evolve into two species and extrapolate that over millions of years the two species can become quite different from each other.

But Creationists have not managed to demonstrate how any god can create anything in a lab, anything at all, from which to extrapolate that the same god has indeed created every species.

And for Intelligent Design, even if we assume that Creationists do not have to demonstrate how whichever god they rely on came to be (just as we don't have to worry about how life started as Darwin's theory does not attempt to explain how that happened), proponents of Intelligent Design, which allegedly works without a god, will have to demonstrate not only how a non-god can create different species but also how the non-god came to be as he is. And then they would have to restort either to Darwin's theory or Creationism; so I think we can safely remove Intelligent Design from the discussion, as it requires one of the two other proposals to be correct before it can work.

Don't read about the bible....read the bible!!! 

Very good advice too.

So TeacherCreature deleted all his articles and ran away.

You know, there's a word for him that I try not to use on a real regular basis, but it applies so well here:

Pussy.  

I've been trying to figure TC out and can't exactly.  He seems not to have a very good bedside manner.  Some things he's come out with I've agreed with but he definitely has alot more vinegar about him than honey. 

As far as the deleting goes, I wonder, if it's some sort of admission to his bad boy behavior.  If so, I'd rather he just fess up and apologize and learn from it rather than deleting discussions. 

Me too, frankly.  It smacks of childishness to just delete everything rather than just admit that you were being a jerk about things.

The saddest thing is, his behavior is the very type of thing to drive people further and further away from Christianity.

The part I found irritating is that he presented himself as the "teacher" when in reality the discussion went on very well without him with people learning from each other. His participation usually just triggered the momentary end of the actual discussion when he fought a few people and explained how he was better than everybody else.

Absolutely. But I have to admit that you and KFC did a good job in presenting Christianity as a rational force in the discussion, both in your respective ways.

It is very strange that you say those two contradictory concepts at the same time while you really didnt need to.

He is the only One True God. He has many many attributes, his functions as those attributes DOES NOT mean or imply that He is divisible or partionable or He is a multi-part Being.

Why do you NEED to impart that multi-part theology on His being. You stretch the scriptures' words to unacceptable limits in your search for a justification for unnecessary and illogical concept.

you see what i mean???? .... no need to do that at all. He reveals Himself in every one of His creation .... just read and contemplate the following:

" We will reveal our miracles to them in the horizons and in themselves till they discover that HE IS THE TRUTH"

the "we" and "our" that you use as a justification for your concept of the nature of His being is a very normal and ordinary way to convey the majesty of the speaker ... it is not a novel idea or unique or anything confusing as you make it to be.

Leauki tried to convey to you that it is a language used by any mortal royalty .... and you get confused by it when used by The ROYALTY of Royalties??? just listen to QEII when she gives her annual Xmas message to her subjects.

Hope you dont think of her as Three-in-One the next day. They have trouble getting rid of her as one .... the Brits will be very angry with you if you make her three .

Leauki, you are greatly mistaken on more than one count in this whole article.

1- First you assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that your idea of a better design for the biological facts you mentioned will be better as a design. You, or anyone else for that matter, can't even make, let alone create, a simple device that can function for 80 or even 90 years while being used every single second of its life.

and you think that your ideas of what the eye's design should be is an improvment? .... the arrogance of Man has no limits !!!!!

2- Your answer to Lula's question and my reply to her below proves that your theory of where science flourish more is totally false. Muslims believe in Creation as Jews and Christians do and all of theym without exception, teach their people that Creationism doesnt contradict sience or even eveoultion.

you simply ignored a very obvious fact: Most if not ALL the scientists who laid the foundation of our current sciences, including Darwin himself, were raised and taught in a creationism societies be it Jewish, Christians or Muslims.

Tell me one, just one, giant of our sciences who were not raised that way? Jaber-Ben Hayan, Ibn-Sina, Alkhawarizmy, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Derrick,  Bohr, and all of the Quantum mechanics’ scientists including Feynman were all raised in a Creationism societies !!!!!!!

3-Is it far fetched for any one to think of a creator who gives his creations the ability to adapt and change their biology in order to preserve their species????

why is that difficult to think of? why create a conflict where ther is none?

you get a seed for a plant from anywhere and plant it far away from its origin and the seed will produce a plant that is little different from the one produced the seed. Does that mean that the first seed of that kind of a plant was not created ?

Evolution is an integral part of the original creation leauki ... and that original was created ...

eveolution cant answer that question (the source of the origin !!!!) creationism does. Unless eveolution can stand on its own ... it is in no conflict with creationism

Lula, you really should read some history ... all of our western sciences are based on what Muslim scientists produced ... Ibn-Sina, Jaber-ben Hayan (Algebra is named after him ... he invented it) and Alkhwarizmy .. (Algorithims are named after him, he also invented the method) and most medical instruments, navigation instruments we now use had their origins from Muslim inventors ... and many many more... just read Lula ... it is a very good way to learn

No, I am not.

You don't have to be a better designer to see flaws in designs. In fact my job is finding flaws in code before the product is released. But could I develop a better product? No. Your assumption that ability to spot flaws requires an ability to design a better product is flawed.

I don't have any ideas of what the eye's design should be. But people who build cameras do. And we are lucky that they possess the very arrogance you speak of.

What does that have to do with my contention? I never claimed that Islam's view of Creation contradicts science. In fact I am totally convinced that Islam is better than Christianity in promoting scientific research.

Like Lula and KFC you focus on the religion rather than the Creationism/science argument.

I said that countries that teach Creationism instead of evolution are behind in science. I didn't say that particularly Islamic or Christian countries were behind.

Where or how do I ignore that fact?

Yes, but some people raise above their original education. That's what research is all about. I would be very surprised if the only people discovering X had been raised in a world where X was already known. Where's the research in that?

No. In fact that is what religious people who support evolution believe is happening. I have myself made that point very often.

Ask the Creationists. I am fine with the idea that G-d created a world in which life evolves into the different species we know. Reform/Conservative/Orthodox Judaism is also fine with it (except for a few Haredi sects). So is the Catholic Church.

As for Muslim scienists of the past, I had already answered that question when Lula asked it last (she has a habit of asking questions again and again while ignoring the answers and then pretending she was never told the answer).

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/315536/Science_and_Maths_in_Islamic_Countries

ThinkAloud, edit your comment. I have noticed it before. Something you do in your comment messes up the formatting. Are you pasting from Word or something?