If evolution is true.....

[Augusto]

I don't follow.

[ChristianDamien]

If a person is born with light skin, their skin may darken due to sun exposure. And therefore staying indoors would preserve their natural skin tone. That's a valid point.

In many Asian countries (China, korea etc) it is claimed that white skin is due to being high class and therefore staying indoors. However, that depends on a person's natural skin tone. If you are born with dark skin and remain that way, it wouldn't make any difference staying indoors or outdoors, your skin will still be dark.

[Augusto]

You gotta be careful with those kind of comments. The smite you got was not from me, but it serves as a reminder that societies are really trying to overcome the racial stigma.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Tanning really depends on your skin tone. If you are really fair skinned, you tend to freckle more than tan. Though tanning is a bit tangential to the discussion.

[ChristianDamien]

You gotta be careful with those kind of comments. The smite you got was not from me, but it serves as a reminder that societies are really trying to overcome the racial stigma.

There was no racial stigma intended.

[Augusto]

I believe you... my comment was just me thinking of the reason you might have got that smite.

[Garja]

If a person is born with light skin, their skin may darken due to sun exposure. And therefore staying indoors would preserve their natural skin tone. That's a valid point.

In many Asian countries (China, korea etc) it is claimed that white skin is due to being high class and therefore staying indoors. However, that depends on a person's natural skin tone. If you are born with dark skin and remain that way, it wouldn't make any difference staying indoors or outdoors, your skin will still be dark.

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

[ChristianDamien]

If a person is born with light skin, their skin may darken due to sun exposure. And therefore staying indoors would preserve their natural skin tone. That's a valid point.

In many Asian countries (China, korea etc) it is claimed that white skin is due to being high class and therefore staying indoors. However, that depends on a person's natural skin tone. If you are born with dark skin and remain that way, it wouldn't make any difference staying indoors or outdoors, your skin will still be dark.

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

So you don't even want to educate yourself?

[ChristianDamien]

Educating yourself about bulls**t? Depends.

[Emily]

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

Awesome forum, BTW. 

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

Comments like this bother me. Basically, it's a complete admission that you don't even want to try to begin learning about the most basic aspects of evolution. It's a shame.

So, CD. What will it take to begin to educate you on what evolution has to say? Not that you have to accept evolution, but what the theory of evolution is and also what it isn't Lets play a game: We give you links -> you read the links and try your hardest to understand what evolution is -> you ask questions -> we reply -> you make up your own mind. Not to try to convince you, btut to at least try to get you to understand it better.

Agreed?

[Emily]

Educating yourself about bulls**t? Depends.

I love learning about stuff I don't agree with. It's fun. Try it sometime. You might learn something.

[kevin]

how can you know something is wrong until you know what it is?

i have this conversation frequently.

[ChristianDamien]

My karma ratio proves that I am enlightened.

[none]

My karma ratio proves that I am enlightened.

ha, what are you gonna do when your post count is 665?

[ChristianDamien]

Karma ratio. Not posts.

[ChristianDamien]

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

Awesome forum, BTW. 

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

Comments like this bother me. Basically, it's a complete admission that you don't even want to try to begin learning about the most basic aspects of evolution. It's a shame.

So, CD. What will it take to begin to educate you on what evolution has to say? Not that you have to accept evolution, but what the theory of evolution is and also what it isn't Lets play a game: We give you links -> you read the links and try your hardest to understand what evolution is -> you ask questions -> we reply -> you make up your own mind. Not to try to convince you, btut to at least try to get you to understand it better.

Agreed?

I have already had my questions answered by Mooby on the recent topic.

Appreciate the invite though.

[Case]

@Emily ooh i have a question!

With all the selective breeding we humans have done over the last several thousand years, why have we not created any new species?

[kevin]

we have.

[Case]

really? like what?

[Emily]

It's my understanding that speciation states that if you breed two subspecies (both within the same species) together, you'll get another subspecies. Like what animal breeders do. So, there's Species A - a dog, Subspecies B and Subspecies C. B and C are all part of the dog species and they are able to interbreed with each other. But if Subspecies B and Subspecies C are isolated from each other over many generations, as mutations within both subspecies genes occur it'll get to the point where the two will never be able to interbreed, and then a species has been created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Here's an example take from the wiki link above:

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[26] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[27][28]

[kevin]

case, to answer your question, i need to know what you think a species is.

is a species a population of interfertile organisms reproductively isolated from other such populations?

is a species a population of organisms distinguished by morphology from the others?

we've bred laboratory populations of fruit flies and beetles that fit the first definition, if i recall correctly, and speciation has been done with radishes and primroses. and dogs and pigeons and so forth fit the second.

[Garja]

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

There in lies the reason why your beliefs will be dead by the end of the century.  When you are not only ignorant of science (excusable), but cherish that ignorance (inexcusable) ... Lets just say it doesn't speak well of the validity of your core argument.

[Garja]

Awesome forum, BTW. 

I know right?

[ChristianDamien]

Ok I have a question:

If evolution is a proven fact (like some claim), why is it rejected by many respectable scientists across the world?

[Emily]

Ok I have a question:

If evolution is a proven fact (like some claim), why is it rejected by many respectable scientists across the world?

Appeal to popularity, much? There is not enough information to answer this question. What we need to know are who these scientists are and what their field of study is, and if possible where they got their PhD, and who their doctoral advisor was.

Do you have a list?

[ChristianDamien]

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

And there are probably millions more.

You don't seriously believe all scientists accept evolution, do you?

[Emily]

You don't seriously believe all scientists accept evolution, do you?

Did I ever say this, or imply it?

But, I guess I'll give you credit. However, Discovery.org is a laughing stock, IMO, and that "Darwin Ad" is a complete joke. It screams out as completely unprofessional and has all the appearances of a "hey, look at these people who don't agree with evolution. YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!"

But either way, does a list of scientists not agreeing with evolution mean evolution is false, given how there are just as many and perhaps more scientists who do agree with it?

Keep in mind that there are both climatologists who disagree with global warming, as well as climatologists who do agree with climate change. Same with cosmologists who agree with the big bang, and those who don't.

And another thing, some of the scientists are that list aren't even biologists. Some are theologians. Some are psychiatrists. Some are computer scientists. I would go to a computer scientists for advice with C++ programming, but I wouldn't go to a computer scientist for advice as to why my eye sight is so poor.

[ChristianDamien]

Not a fan of discovery.org and neither knew it was a laughing stock. Also, majority beliefs do not always equal truth. Once upon a time most believed the earth was flat.

Perhaps I will be back with a list of biologists who reject evolution. Stay tuned.

[kevin]

the abounding joy website uses definitions of evolution that no evolutionist would agree with. see their definitions page.

the list of scientistsand their comments about evolution is flawed. many of the comments are disputing darwinian gradualism, which is not considered accurate by the modern evolutionists who have refined darwin's crude model.