Extinction Happens

DodoYou know, I get rather sick of seeing conservationists, typically very liberal conservationists at that, whining about how man is ruining the planet and killing off species and we should all be horrified at ourselves because species are dying because of our evil machinations on the planet.  Well guess what?  That’s evolution!  Species die off every day!  New species arise to fill those ecological niches!  Welcome to the real world!

Whether these species are killed off by man or by other animals or by changes in the ecology, that’s how nature operates.  It’s how things have worked since time immemorial.  It’s how things will continue to work long after our own species has gone extinct.  We need to stop pretending that somehow, we’re special and we have a greater responsibility to protect every species of fly and frog and bird.  We do not.  Evolution happens and that means extinction happens.

Now I think we ought to take reasonable measures not to purposely or carelessly cause the extinction of other species if we can help it, but I swear, there are a lot of conservationists who take it way too far.  I think a lot of this comes from liberal guilt.  There are, without question, a lot of liberals out there who feel guilty because they are alive, especially if they are reasonably happy and well-off.  They’re sad that they’re not poor, disabled, disenfranchised and generally hated, so much so that they begin to hate themselves and everyone around them.  Success is awful and no one ought to be successful, so long as people who are unsuccessful exist.

Of course, this is a first-world problem, caused by people who have far too much time on their hands, sitting around drinking their lattes from Starbucks, driving their SUVs and whining about how hard the world is.  You don’t see this in the middle of sub-Saharan Africa, where people fight to survive and don’t really care that the warthog they’re about to kill for food is endangered or not.  So what?  It’s about survival, not social consciousness. Maybe we’d do better to remember that we’re just animals too and that we will have an impact on this planet, just like any other animal species.  Let’s try to be careful, but not become self-loathing like these ridiculous liberals that over-run the country.  Species die.  Animals go extinct.  They always have, they always will.  Welcome to reality.

Now get a grip and live in it.

150 thoughts on “Extinction Happens

  1. "…we should all be horrified at ourselves because species are dying because of our evil machinations on the planet. Well guess what? That’s evolution! Species die off every day! "

    The depth of ignorance displayed here is astounding. Species are dying off at an accelerated rate because of human activity. This is not an idea discussed by conservationists alone. Evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and paleobiologists will tell you the same thing. Some have even written about it. You need to do some research because you are terribly uninformed on this subject. Sure species die off as a natural part of evolution. There is what scientists call the background extinction rate. Nearly all scientists doing research in the relevant fields are in agreement that the current rate of extinctions is well above this background rate and likely qualifies as a mass extinction event. Most, if not all, agree that this is due to human activity.

    Here is one article you might start with: A looming mass extinction caused by humans, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121101-a-loomin…. It includes remarks from an interview with University of California paleobiologist Anthony Barnosky.

    Human activity has increased the extinction rate as a result of human modification of the Earth's landscape, our impact on the climate, and the reduction and loss of habitat as a result of our activities. This aspect of extinction is not due to evolution.

    You've shown ignorance of extinction and evolution. You've shown in a previous post misunderstanding about matter, energy and Einstein's equation. In much earlier previous posts you displayed a horrible grasp of climate science. Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and stop commenting on scientific matters.

    1. How do you know it was human activity?
      Is there any comparisons to before human activity had an impact? As far as I can tell a huge die off happened long before we arrived, the dinosaurs for example.

      I have to wonder if guilt drives the demand for us to accept all responsibility for everything. It's nice to know I'm not the only one with that thought.

      1. There were five past mass extinction events, the most recent one having occurred about 65 million years ago. This is the one to which you refer. The dinosaurs were only a part of the many species that perished. This was caused by a large asteroid that struck Earth. The other four mass extinction events all had non-human causes similar in nature to the one 65 million years ago. The rate of extinction today is greater than the normal background rate, thus a mass extinction is most likely occurring. The only thing happening that can account for this is the massive human activity that has had an impact on environments all across the planet.

        As to how I know this. I have read the scientific literature and research on the subject. I've educated myself on the topic. I suggest you go do the same.

          1. Listen you condescending bozo, I never said that nature did not "arrange extinction events." If you assumed this somewhere along the way then you are reading stuff into my comments that isn't there. I taught Earth Science for over 20 years, which included a unit on Earth history. I have a degree in geology. So of course I know that extinctions are caused by natural events. I didn't just realize this. I've known it for 40-plus years. We are having a discussion about the current extinction event, not about past extinction events. The current mass extinction event is due to human activity.

          2. I could return your insult and make it even better.

            But before you go off on a tangent why don't we review what you started off with?

            ""…we should all be horrified at ourselves because species are dying because of our evil machinations on the planet. Well guess what? That’s evolution! Species die off every day! "

            The depth of ignorance displayed here is astounding. Species are dying off at an accelerated rate because of human activity."

            Does any of that sound familiar?

            Now can you show that extension events are accelerated or not?

          3. Roger, the evidence that the current rate of extinction is above the background rate is out there and relatively easy to find. But I am not going to help you because it would be useless to do so. I've played this assinine game with you in the past, particularly the lengthy back-and-forth we had sometime ago over climate change. I provided numerous links to websites containing the evidence and research supporting anthropogenic global climate change. From what I could tell then you read little, if any, of it. So it is not my job to educate you. Go do the research yourself.

            Yes, the paragraph below the one in quotes contains a comment I made. I stand by it. Now go educate yourself on the subject. Again, it is not my job to do so. You are presumably intellectually capable of educating yourself, or are you not?

          4. Dogfight
            This man is a poorly educated young earth creationist so please don't waste your time with someone who's sole objective is to find argument for argument's sake.
            He doesn't understand the purpose of debate is to put one's case forward but also learn from others. He's a desperately lonely individual who's only interaction with others is through antagonising posts, mainly on subjects where is ignorance is clear to see.
            Great link btw

          5. Roger, it is true that I would have no problem laying out the evidence, given that I have a rather deep and broad familiarity with it. But as I said in an earlier post doing so in your case would be a waste of my time, as was demonstrated back when we had the lengthy and futile exchange about anthropogenic climate change. I'll not play this game with you again.

            If you are as intelligent as you think you are then go educate yourself on the subject. I provided you with a list of experts whose work you should read. I provided you one link to a website, which I am certain you did not even bother to examine. I'll even be kind enough to provide you three more.

            1) Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
            2) Evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
            3) Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/

            Now this is the full and final extent of the assistance I shall provide you on evolution. Go do your homework and when that is finished, I will consider answering your questions and responding to your replies, all of which at the moment are innane and foolish, and exhibit a complete ignorance about evolution. Until you acquire a level of understanding and scientific comprehension on this subject that makes a rational, informed conversation possible with you, I'll no longer answer any of your questions or reply to your remarks about evolution. You are just to poorly informed on the subject to waste any more time or effort upon.

          6. while it's true you can't lay out evidence I'd love to argue with you but you're a waste of time.
            (your approach)

            Wow, and none of those links show that bad evolutionary forks in the road are guaranteed survival. That means only the best and most viable are likely to move forward under natural selection.

            You can't lay it out, it's not there.

          7. I have told you why I won't take the time to lay out the evidence for you Roger. It is because you are intellectually dishonest. You don't actually try to learn from those who provide you evidence. You'll do what you always do. Dismiss the evidence with irrational comments based on your twisted, warped form of what you laughingly think of as logic, distort and contort the evidence as you filter it through your religion-based creationist filter, and in the end have learned nothing. No sense in trying to educate those who refuse to be educated. I've given you links that would go a long way to correcting your knowledge deficiency, but you don't even bother to take the time to examine them in depth. How do I know this? Because your remark that none of the links "show bad evolutionary forks in the road are guaranteed survival" was written only minutes after I posted my comment with the links. You obviously did not even bother to read them. You did not do your homework. Thus you continue to receive a failing grade on this subject.

            If your intellectual efforts in high school were anything like they are now, I can only imagine how great a disappointment you must have been to your teachers. Now, once again, your instructions are to go do the homework I gave to you. It is a lengthy reading assignment, but one of which you are in desperate need.

      2. In fact, there are quite a few mass extinction events throughout history, long before man ever came on the scene. We're just a part of nature, we like to think we're special but we're really not. Cats, for instance, have caused the extinction of a number of species of bird that we know about, are we mad at cats for doing it? If not, why are we mad at ourselves?

        1. Just a part of nature. Being at the top of the food chain means only that.

          Cats, another fickle feature. I bet they consider themselves at the top of the food chain.

          1. Are you joking Roger about cat's considering themselves at the top of the food chain? I hope so. I really would hate to think that you are so poorly informed on the topic of conscious awareness. There is no evidence that cats have the intellectual ability and/or conscious awareness of sufficient degree to think such complicated thoughts. There is no evidence cats have the ability to actually have thoughts of any kind.

          2. I have no idea what you are asking here. What does it mean to be staff for a cat. And what does a cat barely tolerating a human have to do with my remarks about intelligence and consciousness in cats?

          3. Wow you are dumb
            The science shows cats that for all intent and purposes are not self aware.
            Simple experiment put a mirror in front of a cat and see what happens!

        2. When you say there were quite a few, just how many do you think there were. The geological record has evidence only of five extinction events that scientists label as mass extinctions.

          Yes, we are a part of nature. But that is not an argument or even a relevant or meaningful point in this discussion about the current rate of extinction, which is the result of human activity.

          We aren't mad at ourselves about the human role in extinctions. We are simply acknowledging it and arguing that there are things we can and should do to lessen our impact on biodiversity.

          1. Why would I want to Roger? I never claimed there were not extinction events between the mass extinction events. In fact, I have spoken several times about the background extinction rate, which is the rate of extinction that occurs between the times of mass extinctions. So obviously I am aware, and have indicated this awareness, that there are extinctions in between mass extinctions. Only a person with a reading comprehension problem could have read my comments throughout this thread and conclude, as you appear to have done, that I thought there were no extinctions in between mass extinctions.

          2. And you claimed that human activities are increasing the extinction rates.

            And when challenged you haven't been able to back that up by comparing it to the average extinction rate.

          3. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Drone on fool with your drivel. Cut and paste is all your comments are is worthy of.

          4. This too is funny. Imagine you thinking you understand or know anything about cognitive ability. Another subject you need to educate yourself about. But first go complete the homework assignment on evolution already assigned to you.

          5. You know, at least now you're being honest. You dropped the pretenses and are just spamming with a few words instead of long boring lectures.

          6. Long lectures or short lecture, all are wasted on you. So be a good little boy now Roger and go do the homework assignment given to you. Then maybe we can talk.

          7. If you can't debate and explain your position, why are you here?

            Perhaps if you clear your head on the expectations for a forum like this you can be worth talking to.

          8. Now this is funny. You haven't even the faintest idea of how to debate. So now be a good little boy Roger and go do the homework assignment given to you. Then maybe we can talk.

          9. Fine, debate. Lay out your evidence and let's debate it.

            Unless you don't know how to debate and aren't here to actually talk….

          10. You haven't a clue what reason is. You demonstrate the truth of this with every post. So So now be a good little boy now Roger and go do the homework assignment given to you. Then maybe we can talk.

          11. Sure I do, and that's why I pointed out that when you blame human activities for all extinction events you were coming from a flawed position.

            Now, be a good little boy and either explain yourself or adjust your position.

          12. You really do have a reading problem. I never claimed that human activities were to blame for all extinction events. In fact, throughout many of my posts I clearly talked about many extinction events that occurred before humans. There are only two extinction events which humans are at least partially responsible for: the one that occurred near the end of the last Ice Age when many land mammals, such as Mastodons, Wooly Mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, became extinct, and the one that is presently occurring.

            You still have not done your homework assignment.

          13. Just cut and paste. If you have nothing to add, does that mean you won't? Or will you just try to toss in enough flowery words to sound confusing again?

          14. Blah Blah Blah. Be a good little boy now Roger and go do the homework assignment given to you. Then maybe we can talk.

          15. Another piece of humor. A debate with you is impossible since you haven't the requisite debating skills or even the basic knowledge about how to debate to engage in a debate. Add to this your complete ignorance of the subject under discussion and hence the reason a debate with you is completely useless until you complete the homework assignment given to you.

          16. I notice you claim you know how to debate.

            Then why not use those skills and in an intelligent manner lay out your case with evidence, like I've been doing with links.

          17. This too is a joke. You haven't laid out any case, thought in your deluded brain you think what you've said thus far constitutes an argument and a case. It does not. And links that provide evidence? You have given one link to an item about a Panda preserve. It provides nothing even remotely qualifying as evidence for the stupid, uninformed claims you have been making.

          18. Honestly this is exactly why he wants an argument to give his worthless life purpose. Just let him say what he wants and ignore it, it riles him more than anything.

          19. I feel sorry for dogfight. Its just debating with a complete moron is utterly futile. He drags you down to his level and beats you with experience.
            Dogfight seems to be an intelligent scientist who offers constructive posts and arguments. The other is a prat!

          20. He's reached the same conclusion about roger that everyone does … except roger.

            My issue with Dogfight is that he never uses two words when ten will do.

          21. Yes, you keep going in circles and pretending to be above it all.

            And you seem to be here wasting time and space, but that's what the posse does.

            I'm just glad that poof and alinsky are still banned or the would be here instead of sending you two.

          22. Thank you for the compliment njmcc. One important correction. I am not a scientist. I am a retired high school science teacher, though I do have a degree in geology. I have made a study of every branch of science and literally read hundreds of books and peer-reviewed research articles in nearly every area of science.

          23. Roger, I have repeatedly told you why I won't lay out a case for you. You don't actually listen. You do not try to learn from those of us who have tried on numerous occasions to educate you, to correct your errors and misunderstandings. But I, and others, here, have provided you with a large number of links to sites where you can educate yourself on the subject. It is not my job to educate you. If you are as intelligent as you claim to be then do the reading homework given to you.

          24. Then don't expect me to jump through hoops for you, or to have much credibility.

            There are all sorts of links and sources that you can use to understand why my position has more logic to it than yours.

          25. The site and forum is here to discuss things.

            Your trying to stop that, and to keep it from happening is exactly what gives your worthless life purpose.

            We need to just realize you're part of the posse who trails me and works to keep any significant debate from happening. If we actually have deep thinking it riles you more than anything.

          1. Cats have to eat too. Species go extinct all the time, it is estimated that we loose about 1000 species each and every year completely naturally. More species are added all the time as well. The idea that nothing should ever go extinct because humans are nostalgic is a bit silly.

  2. "I think a lot of this comes from liberal guilt."

    Then you think wrong. Those of us who are concerned about biodiversity and other species are not motivated by guilt of any kind. We are genuinely concerned about the welfare of other species. That you think liberal guilt is at the core of our concerns only shows that you have a twisted, warped understanding of liberalism. In fact, liberalism has relatively little to do with it. It has to do with one's set of ethical principles. I am sure there are conservatives who also share an ethical concern for other species and biodiversity on the planet. Would they be motivated by some conservative guilt? This idea of liberal guilt is just sheer nonsense. You don't actually have the faintest idea of what motivates liberals.

  3. "There are, without question, a lot of liberals out there who feel guilty because they are alive, especially if they are reasonably happy and well-off."

    Again, you reveal a near total lack of understanding of liberalism and liberals. You think yourself some kind of armchair psychologist? This idea of liberal guilt is a really stupid idea you've created in your mind so that you don't actually have to take liberal ideas and principles seriously.

  4. "They’re sad that they’re not poor, disabled, disenfranchised and generally hated, so much so that they begin to hate themselves and everyone around them."

    This is simultaneously laughable and idiotic. Amazing. The Great Psychologist Cephus has peered into the psychology and mind of liberals and found what ails them all. It would appear you are no more qualified in psychology than you are in science. You should stop bloviating on topics and subjects where you have such a great depth of ignorance. You seem to be a victim of what cognitive psychologists call the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's one of those cognitive biases. You should read up on it.

  5. "Maybe we’d do better to remember that we’re just animals too and that we will have an impact on this planet, just like any other animal species."

    Important difference between we human animals and other animals. We have the ability and the conscious awareness to actually control the impact we have on the planet. There is nothing about the process of evolution that requires us to be mindless about what we choose to do.

  6. "…but not become self-loathing like these ridiculous liberals that over-run the country…"

    Your ignorance is once again on display.

    "Species die. Animals go extinct. They always have, they always will."

    No liberal has ever disputed this or said otherwise. But the fact that species die and extinction occurs is not an argument for doing nothing when human activity is resulting in a rate of extinction well above the natural, background rate.

  7. Its a very fine balance as you point out we should not try make something extinct (although we do with the mosquito) yet we cannot blame ourselves for everything. The classic example is my favorite animal the Panda. Its so useless that in effect it is killing itself with its lack of desire to breed even with all the help it is receiving. Its as if the Panda wants to become extinct. I don't want them to go extinct (its my favorite fluffy animal after all) but really they are useless.
    My recent post Why can't we call theists stupid?

          1. Sure it does, unless you're just ignoring the obvious.

            It's about a panda preserve, land set aside so the have habitat that's secure.
            Deal with it or not. I don't much care.

            It's obvious you're just here to spout and waste time while insulting and offending everyone.

          2. Blah Blah Blah Blah. You blather on but say nothing of substance. Its obvious that you don't know what is obvious, nor that you know what you are talking about. Yet you have deluded yourself into thinking you have a level of knowledge and understanding about extinction and evolution that makes you competent to engage in a meaningful conversation about them. Your delusion is so strong and so deep that you don't even realize that you are actually intellectually incompetent and ill-equipped to talk about these subjects. You are a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect). Do yourself a favor and read what is actually at this link and then THINK upon it. I know, this won't be easy for you, but you really, really, really, really, need to do this.

            Yes, it is a panda preserve. And why have a panda preserve? To try to prevent the extinction of pandas, which the evidence supports is due largely, if not exclusively, to human activity – human-caused reduction in the Panda's natural habitats. Panda's are becoming extinct not because of natural selection working on its own, but because humans have engaged in activities that have disrupted the normal action of natural selection.

    1. "Its so useless that in effect it is killing itself with its lack of desire to breed even with all the help it is receiving."

      You display a lack of understanding here. First, the Panda has no desire to breed or not breed. It has a natural inclination to do so. Desire is a human emotion, something exhibited by humans, not by Pandas. Secondly, the Panda is breeding at its natural rate. You don't seem to have an understanding about the breeding habits of different organisms. Are you not aware that all species have a different breeding rate? And that this rate is somewhat dependent upon the environmental and ecological conditions and variables present in their habitat? In the wild the female Panda breeds about every two years. Prior to human destruction of Panda habitat, this was a rate sufficient to sustain the species. But Panda's are going extinct because human activity has seriously diminished their habitat and thus led to overall fewer Pandas. A birth rate that was sufficient to sustain the species has now become incapable of doing so. This has nothing to do with anything the Panda's have themselves done.

        1. Perhaps I did go astray in saying you lack understanding. But then I had only your choice of words to use in determining your understanding. The fact that Panda's breed slowly is not the reason they are going extinct. They are going extinct, as I pointed out in by remarks, because human destruction of their habitat has turned a reproduction rate that maintained their survival into one that now does not. There is nothing inherently damaging to them in their natural reproduction rate. Furthermore, you used their slow reproduction rate as a part of an assertion that Panda's are useless. This simply is wrong. Their natural rate of reproduction does not make them useless nor does it have anything to do with a "lack of desire to breed."

          No, we did not all know what you meant when you used the phrase "desire to breed." Language matters. And this is particularly so when discussing scientific topics. Use of words matters because the use of words to describe a concept can and sometimes do lead to misunderstandings and misconceptions. You ought avoid being a party to production of misunderstanding and misconceptions. Furthermore, since I do not have direct access to your brain and the store of knowledge it contains, I can only judge that level of knowledge and understanding on the basis of the words and phrases you use to express it. You should exercise more care in the words you use if you don't want to be misunderstood. If you understand evolution and the science of reproduction of organisms so well, then why did you not know that the word desire would not be a word that has any descriptive relevance to this topic?

          Lastly, stop trivializing the horror of Nazism by using it to insult a person. Your use of the Nazi insult is an excellent example of the simultaneous use of an ad hominem and Godwin's Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law). Such trivial and improper use of the Nazi reference "waters down the impact of any valid usage" of the term.

          1. Apparently desire does not only have to entail human desire. It can basically just mean "to want to have sex with" according to Merriam Webster. So I guess desire was not such a bad choice of word after all. Yes, I agree habits are getting destroyed I just happen to place more relevance to human life than I do to Panadas, even though they are adorably useless.

            As for the grammar nazi comment. Its a phrase, its colloquial. Not much more to say.

            Anyway see ya
            My recent post God's not dead a belated very short review

    2. "I don't want them to go extinct (its my favorite fluffy animal after all) but really they are useless."

      They are not useless. In their environment, in their habitat they play a role. That makes them useful. Just because they serve to apparent function that serves you as a human does not make them useless. All species are useful in the sense that within their environment they play an ecological role that is useful in that ecological system.

      1. Yes, their own individual feces must do something no other feces manages to handle.

        They eat bamboo but only digest 2% of it, so they really are adapted to their environment. (not)

        1. More ignorance on display. So now be a good little boy now Roger and go do the homework assignment given to you. Then maybe we can talk.

          1. Yes, but I had hoped instead of arrogance and ignorance you would lay out your position and the evidence for it. When you do, then maybe it won't be just me using logic for conclusions here.

          2. "…maybe it won't be just me using logic for conclusions here."

            Yet another joke. Logic is yet another subject of which you are ignorant and unskilled at. I know you think you have been engaging in logic argumentation. But this is only evidence that you are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Since you already have a large homework assignment I won't give you one to complete on logic and argumentation. That will have to wait until after you complete the assignment already given to you.

          3. Religion is a matter of faith.

            I have explained why my belief on 'origins' leans towards support for the theory of 'intelligent design'. That has science, and facts behind it as I see it. Diversity and complex life forms for example.

            You won't even admit I've described diversity or complexity in life. Why would I go any farther?

          4. If it\’s just a matter of faith then it\’s useless. Should we just declare everything a matter of faith and not have to actually defend our views rationally? You don\’t get a double standard.

          5. Is it? It depends on the influence it has on the believer.

            I've defended my beliefs on origins without imposing my faith. I have drawn on science, natural facts and known physical things.

            And my understanding of faith is different than yours. To you it seems to be something imposed against all reason. Mine is something you agree to based on reasoning.

            Due to my western thinking I realize it's an individual journey. I accept that you are genuine in your beliefs, and don't attack you for it. I merely say that we hold different beliefs. And you know what? Your journey is a valid one, I don't take anything away from that. CS Lewis had a similar journey. I'm only halfway through the video now but he was where you are now. And as with all living things, we keep searching and reaching out for more.


            Isn't that the human existence and what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? You just are on a different path, a different place than I am.

          6. Strength of believe has nothing to do with veracity of belief. I don't care how strongly people who believe in Bigfoot are, that doesn't make Bigfoot any more valid.

          7. Which is why I don't argue faith here.

            But there is evidence of intelligent design, and that much I do feel deserves serious notice.

          8. Well no, you've posted things you consider evidence, but which really don't qualify in the scientific sense because you can't demonstrate any kind of direct causal link. They are things that seem convincing to you. The real test is if they are convincing to people who don't hold your beliefs and unfortunately for you, they are not. And if faith isn't worth arguing here among skeptics, then it isn't worth arguing, or holding, at all. Essentially, you're doing what the conspiracy theorists do, you huddle among the already-believers, acting like you have the real truth, and anyone in the outside world who doesn't agree with your entirely unsupported ideas must be wrong.

          9. Of course complexity is evidence of design.

            The statistical probility of random chance droos with each feature, and in in all life there is amazing complexity.

            You just don't want to admit to that possibility.

          10. No, you've simply asserted such, you haven't demonstrated it. You're engaged in the endless fallacy from personal incredulity, you don't understand how that supposed complexity can come about naturally, but you're certainly not an expert in the field and honestly, the experts are not impressed with such claims.

          11. Still won't admit to that possibility?

            You should know about statistical analysis and probabilities.
            And if a life form is designed then the complexity would be natural for it.
            Cephus, the experts haven't designed a complex life form and the small single cell man made life took a lot of designing.

          12. Because you haven't demonstrated that it's actually real! You might have a point if we didn't see a long lineage of evolution, but we do. You've just got this imaginary friend of yours that you insist on stuffing into everything, whether it exists or not, and you're bound and determined to force it into the creation of life, yet you still have no evidence that such an entity actually exists (and you refuse to talk about it without addressing blind faith). Without that, there's no point in considering the possibility, any more than we should consider whether leprechauns or Santa Claus was responsible. Prove God first, then we'll talk.

          13. I see complexity as proof that complexity is real.

            If there is complexity the question is how?

            Was it random or intentional?
            We are not talking about one or two random complex life forms, but a world filled with them.

            For me, that is evidence of design. That the life forms are so specific for the places in the bio-systems seems more than chance could arrange.

            And the man made life form, single cell life forms took designing, and a lot of work, that's also evidence that it can't be replicated by chance.

            You won't accept the possibility, so it's not really talking.
            But that refusal doesn't make any life form less complex.

          14. But you're still just arbitrarily selecting a level of supposed complexity, not showing that such a level is impossible to have come about naturally, nor showing how you objectively came to this conclusion. You have no expertise, you have no objective evidence and you have no criteria for making the claims that you make. You've just picked it because it appeals to you. How do you know any of the things that you claim to know? You don't. It just makes you feel good to think you do. All of the insistence in the world doesn't make it so.

          15. No, you're the one claiming that design is needed at ANY level, not me. Therefore you're the one who has to back it up. When do you plan on actually doing that?

          16. Which says nothing whatsoever about the ability of nature to do the same thing. How do you know that it can't happen? Where is your evidence?

          17. Sure it does.

            If it took all those controls and all that effort for a single cell that can't survive outside the lab, it would take even more for complex life forms.

            You simply won't admit to even the possibility of a designer.

            I haven't even stipulated what that designer might be, extra terrestrial beings, or even mortal beings that have since passed into history.

            But for an open mind you seem rather close minded.

          18. Not at any place you would want to attend.

            Not at any place you would accept as credible. I notice I haven't challenged your credentials, nor sources of expertise, just laid out facts as I suspect them. You haven't said that the things I point to are not complex, just that my conclusions are wrong without laying out a stronger alternative.

            Can you point to any life form that has has been observed to become more complex with mankind watching?

            Science, can your theory be duplicated? Mine was by that human designed single cell life form.

          19. The facts as you suspect them, not as you can prove them, that's the problem. And no, not with man watching, these things take millions of years. Of course, you can't point to a single life form being created by your imaginary god either.

          20. You just ignored my example that proves my point, the man made single cell life forms, designed by those more intelligent than it can understand.

          21. Yet another claim that you haven't backed up. Just because man has become intelligent enough to do such things doesn't mean that such things cannot and did not come about naturally. We've discovered how to, at least in theory, do nuclear fusion. The sun does it all the time, entirely naturally. Or are you now going to concoct "intelligent fusion"?

          22. The scientific literature is packed full of cases, maybe you ought to study some of it instead of having your nose jammed in that idiotic Bible.

          23. You are aware that most science is done in actually books and peer-reviewed journals, not on the Internet, right? And you only presented a case of man creating life, not of nature not being able to do so. I've asked you many times to do so, you've failed every time.

          24. I knknow that if a paper isnt' able to replicate results it's not worth teh paper it's written on. And you side stepped that I provided proof of deisngn working on a single cell life form and you haven't shown a single case of spontanenous life form that sprang from random chance.

          25. And you continue to prove that you haven't got the slightest clue what evolution says at all. No wonder you believe such idiotic things.

          26. I do understand it, I just don't see it's scientifically viable, intelligent design seems more realistic, even if we dont' agree on the designer.

          27. Then it shouldn't be easy to prove your scenario and to prove what Ive said wrong, tothe same standards you would expect from me.

          28. The article to which linkked, Roger, is not evidence that there is no natural process that can produce living things and cause evolution. That you think it is evidence for your claim is evidence that you don't actually understand the science of evolutionary biology.

          29. The link I used showed that single cell life was designed.

            You haven't linked to anything, so right now it's better than anything you've used to show your case.

          30. I know tI know the difference and am wiating for you to show either one. That meets the same standards fof proof you would demand from me.

          31. Seriously, you need to go read a very basic book on the subject. Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" is good but if you need it really, really dumbed down for you, Tim Berra's "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" might be more your speed. You honestly have no clue what you're talking about and all of your "feelings" don't impress anyone.

          32. There is obvious complexity in life around you. INstead of telling me to read a book, perhaps I need to suggest you look around you and see what there are things that random chnace wouldn't cause.

            Like the one cell life form deisnged by man.

          33. In other words, you're choosing to remain ignorant and then talk about things you clearly don't understand. It's like talking to a 6-year old about nuclear physics. The kid, like you, just doesn't get it and there's no basis to have an intelligent discussion.

          34. in other words I choose to see the real worl d around me over propaganda that ignores it. Why don't you prove me wrong, and show a single live thing thta has been observed to have evolved into anothe rlife form? You know, wihthout a designer like that single cell life form in a lab that has been observed? Prove me wrong.

          35. Your credentials, Cepheus' credentials, my credentials, and those of the others posting here are not significant details. What is relevant is that your entire argument and every claim you have made is not supported by the evidence. And the evidence I am speaking of is evidence that was collected and analyzed by qualified experts, something you are not. You are saying that literally every evolutionary biologist is wrong. Yet you've not read the body of research and evidence. You've not studied evolution in detail. You are not a qualified expert. You don't even have sufficient knowledge to intelligently discuss, let alone dispute, the conclusions of the scientific community. By the way, intelligent design is not science. It is not a scientific theory. It is nonsense masquerading as science. Intelligent design has been shown by the scientific community to be wrong.

          36. "Was it random or intentional?"

            This is a logical fallacy: the false dilemma. There is a third choice here. That choice is natural selection, which is neither random nor intentional. You obviously need to educate yourself on this subject because you are fixated on the incorrect assumption that evolution is purely and solely a random process. It is not.

            "That the life forms are so specific for the places in the bio-systems seems more than chance could arrange."

            This is the illusion of intentional design which you have so thoroughly accepted that it is now a delusion. The diversity and complexity of life on the planet did not result from a random-chance process. Evolution is not a random chance process. Again, go read the content about evolution at the various website resources that have been provided in this conversation. Go read some of the books about evolution by the experts that have been mentioned.

          37. "Of course complexity is evidence of design."

            No. At best it is apparent evidence of the possibility of design. But evolution through natural selection makes this accepting this possibility entirely unnecessary. If you would bother to educate yourself on evolution it should become obvious to you that complexity and the appearance of design can and do arise from a purely naturalistic process. No need of a designer, intelligent or otherwise.

            "The statistical probility of random chance droos with each feature, and in in all life there is amazing complexity."

            This might be true if evolution were purely a random-chance process. But it is not. Again, you would know this if you would actually educate yourself on evolution. Mutations that occur in the genetic code are the result of random events. But natural selection, the process that actually is the engine of evolution, is not a random process.

            You have been given a number of links to resources on evolution. Go read them. Think about what you read and then come back and maybe, just maybe you will be well enough informed to actually have an intelligent conversation about evolution. At present you are ill-equipped and ill-prepared.

          38. Roger, Talkorigins.com. can answer all the questions your limited Mormon based Nebraska public school education has to answer .Please feel free to waste other peoples time with your willful ignorance Cephus is toying with you if you after over 1,938 comments on this site have not gained. Shmuck!

          39. Smelly butt jam, really. Is this why you're part of the posse going around spamming any conservative site to stop debate? I realize you can't go back to Ray's and attack him any longer, but let's just make one thing part of the details you all keep on me.

            I'm not mormon.

          40. And you are not a Christian. So my guess is from all the goat sex, and comments about young boys jerking; your a Mormon, or a Muslim?

          41. If you were a Christian you would realize that you don't get to make that call.

            So, you are just pretending and lying about your own life.
            You seem to be stuck on the boy story, not me. Patriot was about goat sex, and you as a part of the posse can't keep your facts straight.

            Are you and smith the only two trolls that can sneak past Cephus?

    3. Since you like Panda's I thought you might be interested in a short – 1.5 minute – video I just watched showing a Panda giving birth to triplets. Here is the url:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)