I agree that if the change was not favorable it would die out. My question is how can he claim that the basic pattern once formed did not change for millions of years? If you say its because it works, then evolution should stall at the first successful organism.

Theory of evolution is not tested science. Its not like theory of relativity or some thing similar. It tries to explain some aspects of the origin and existence of life but most if the crucial topics remain untouched.

Im not talking about large neutral organs wasting vast quantities of energy. Im talking about small neutral organs like a patches of useless photo/heat/vibration-receptors on the body that are useless but are harmless in every sense.

Good, so you should be answering my questions.

What do you think that proves?

Did they condition you to do that as part of qualifying for your degree?

Glad I didn't get that 'edumacation'.

But don't feel too bad, even eminent (sic) Christian philosophers like Platinga think that evolution is something that 'cares' about how and what mutations occur in biological chemistry, so it's no small wonder why there is such ignorance among Christians in particular, and it's easy to see where to lay blame to their ignorance...

Have you read ANY of the peer-reviewed and published articles that are available to you as links in the original post?

Basic patterns have not changed all that much when we are talking about basic.  Oxygen breathers have not changed how they deal with oxygen because the basic structures for dealing with oxygen work.  All organisms that survive on an oxygen based biochemistry have similar structures and molecules - as evolved by the very first aerobic single celled organisms.  All of the organisms that rely on aerobic (oxygenated) biochemistry have mitochondria in their cells - humans too - because it worked for the very first single celled critter that teamed up with a mitochondria cell to make it work.  If it works, it doesn't change.  And it gets inherited by its offspring - all of its offspring for however many millions of generations after the first.

Evolution doesn't stop just because it is successful the first time.  It continues - on and on.  Single celled organisms predate on each other.  Well, if you gang up, you can predate on more.  Jellyfish are a colony of organisms, for example.  And so on.  This is where evolutionary biology and ecology overlap.  As food sources become plentiful in a particular niche, other organisms will evolve to take advantage of them.  So you have a continuous evolution of predator and prey, each trying to not be eaten and to eat.  If there is adequate food and not much competition, then not much evolving is going to happen.  The existing structures are adequate and mutations do not confer an advantage. 

It is when the mutation confers an advantage - either because the mutation is beneficial or because of changes in the local ecology - that you see evolution happening rapidly.  Remember, all it is is a change in the frequency of an allele.  And if the allele allows just a few extra offspring to survive to adulthood each generation, it won't be long before it is dominant in the population.

And have you seen relativity?  Is it something you can touch?  I am not saying the theory of relativity can not be measured.  Of course it can.  And it can be tested and measurements compared.  But it isn't something you can smell or taste or see.  It is a concept.

Evolution, on the other hand, is just the change in allele frequency in a population over time.  We can measure the frequency, we can physically compare chromosomes and DNA.  Hence, the Bones and CSI series.  Scientists have tested, counted, profiled, analyzed the genomes of a number of populations.  And they have seen the mutations on the chromosomes.  If there weren't any changes we would all look identical to each other.

Evolution in the broader sense - which is what you are going on about - in the sense of speciation and humans being the mammals and primates that they are - has been documented.  In our historical records, in our breeding programs, in domesticated species, in the fossils, in the diversity of species on earth and in the genes. 

Yes it has been tested.  And one of the tests is - does the theory predict accurately?  Can we make a hypothesis then predict where we might find the answer and what that answer might look like?  Yes, we can and we have.  Scientists have made predictions that a particular ancestor that looks like thus and so must be found in this epoch.  And so they have searched for and found the fossil that fits that description in that epoch, just where they predicted they would.  They have tested in the lab.  And have pushed bacteria to evolve to new conditions.  They have tested in the wild, finding new species that they know did not exist earlier.  (Nylon eating bacteria did not exist before there was nylon to eat.)  They test in the agriculture business.  Just what do you think genetically modified food is if not forced evolution?  They test in our hospitals - researching genetic diseases and evolving viruses and bacteria. 

The organs don't have to be large to waste energy.  Some organisms - not modern humans and our corporate agricultural industrial capabilities - are close enough to the edge that a very small waste of energy could push them to extinction. 

BTW, you do have photo, heat, vibration sensors on your skin already.  You have photosensitive cells that convert sunlight to vitamin D.  You have heat sensors that tell you you have a sun burn or you are too close to the stove.  You have tactile sensors both for pain and pressure.  Humans don't have vibration sensors exactly, but we can feel the hairs of our body move with wind and water.

Try asking some questions that show you have done your homework.  I have no patience for spending time replying to posts and carefully hunting for supporting documentation only to have my efforts totally ignored while you continue to reiterate the same questions - obviously without spending any of your time and effort on at least reading what information you have been given.  Even if you don't bother to learn anything, you could at least demonstrate that you have skimmed over some of the material.

^ Hear hear

I'll offer kudos when y'all acknowledge that you can't prove G-d didn't create Evolution the same as G-d created everything else in the entire Universe

Try not to argue against Christianity when arguing with me.  You tried that the last time I stopped by a few years ago and that didn't get you any further then than it will now.

You think the Laws of Nature exist because they always existed?  Would "No" be the correct answer?

Prior to the Creation of the Universe, or Big Bang, or pick your favorite cosmology, none of the Laws of Nature which make Evolution happen even existed.  Without matter or energy, there was no Laws of Thermodynamics.  The Pauli Exclusion Principle didn't exist.  No Weak Nuclear Force.  No Binding Energies to cause stellar thermonuclear fusion to favor the production of Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen and cease with the production of Iron.  No need to deal with supernovae with produced massive amounts of heavier atoms with poor organic chemistry.

Prior to the Creation fo the Universe, or Big Bang or turtles on the backs of still more turtles, there was nothing.  And that includes all of Science.

If a God can 'just exist', then so can a minimall level of Planck scale energy. And that is all we need for events like the Big Bang to have a finite probability of occuring at some random time. If there was meaningfully any 'Time' before the singularity, what existed then need be nothing more than a minimal energy state pervading whatever dimensions reality occupied, and need not have a 'beginning'. 

Alternatively, Time may have more that one dimension itself, and be curved, meaning asking what was 'before' the singularity would be like asking what is North of the North Pole of the Earth.

There are a number of ideas being bounced around - string theory, M-theory, etc .

As I have already said, if you want to label whatever principle required that 'something' exist. ok, but that does NOT logically entail anything that could meaningfully correspond to any version of the Abrahamic Deity, or the Egyptian Gods, or the Sumerian Gods, which predated yours, or the many other variations that human minds have created.

Introducing a 'God' is now only an unnecessary complication in any attempt to explain existence.

God is an infinitely more implausible 'thing' to have 'just exist'. And totally unnecessary. It amounts to just a series of naked assertions and non-sequiters, built on primitive superstitions.

Principles pre-exist. They are the properties of reality that govern the fundamental attributes and behaviour of the elementals of energy and particles.

You may be thinking of the Laws describing the behavior or specific particles, which are dependent on the specific particles which have condensed out of our Big Band, and which may have formed in different ways in possible different instances of a Singularity.

I asked you. Are you afraid to try and explain it in case you're not accurate?

Theoretical physicists don't all suspect the same thing. Therefore I asked you because you are making absolute claims of knowing things they are still trying to work out.

But, I guess you don't know more than them.

That's not what they're all saying.

Or haven't you heard?

Which ones should I believe, and how do you know that they have a more accurate understanding?

I guess you missed the point.

That's like saying the rules of hockey couldn't exist without hockey players. That's a total non sequitur.

So the rapid expansion of the singularity happened in 'no time'? Is that what you're claiming? How could that be?

Let's back up a bit. Maybe I don't understand time as well as you personally do.

Can you personally explain what time is?

Much of the rest? You mean there was somethings that were added to what emerged from the singularity?

I've never heard that one before. Please explain that more elaborately.

You mean you have that knowledge too?

Can you explain how you know that? There's a lot of people who say that God is the Father and the Son, so, I'd really like to know why people claim that he's male in gender and that Adam (who had a penis) was created in 'His' image.

There seems to be much confusion that you could help clear up, if you had accurate knowledge.

So you're in the minority?

Why don't the majority of people believe the things you say? Are you too busy to show people what is accurate and what isn't?

I wouldn't know.

The majority of people making the current god claims are saying that there is only 1, and then saying that 'he' is the Father, the Son, and the Hold Ghost.

2 of those would be male by definition.

How do you know that the supposed 'god' that supposedly created this formation we inhabit wasn't made itself by something else?

I can imagine some possible world where that is possible.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

I asked 'How do you know?', not where I can read about it.

Is all that you are doing? Reading back or paraphrasing something you've read?

The numerous theories about what could have been before the Big Bang don't support your claim that there could not have been anything before the Big Bang. Maybe you need to get up to speed.

I didn't think it was. Nor was I interested in what a bunch of ignorant men wrote as testimony.

I was interested in having you explain what you think, but it seems that you just take those kinds of scribblings on faith.

It appears you're confused. I never asked where I could find a science textbook.

I might do that too if I presupposed that the claims of the Abrahamic god were accurate. But, I'd probably study as many of the other religions as well.

Based on the knowledge I have gained so far, it could take a lifetime and I still wouldn't have time to compare all the claims.

That's good. At least you read about theories based on evidence that was tested for compatibility with reality, even though it seems you're a little behind. 

So, you've never read about theories of Quantum Foam where particles and energy can emerge and vanish without violating the laws of conservation?

Have you read about the theories of 10 dimensions + Time existing?

If you know these things are not possible, why haven't you written about your knowledge to prevent people from living their lives in vain?

Many theist who think they know their stuff have blogs to try and educate others. Do you have a blog, or just like to run your mouth and think that you can run with this RRS crowd here on an intellectual level?

I think you're full of shit, and aren't even half as knowledgeable as some of the theists that we get on here. 

Let's see what you got, other than stupid dodges to questions that can make you look the utter fool.

Fender,

So I see your tactic is the giant mega-response interspersed with crap you don't understand.  Like, your closing comment about "quantum foam" -- "Quantum Foam" isn't about making new "big bangs" right next door to some other "big bang", and the "foam" isn't like shaving cream, or even infinitely large amounts of shaving cream.

Nor do I give a flip what polytheists say about their magical Three-In-One penis-bearing bearded old white guy.

Nor do I give a flip about speculation about what existed before anything existed, or perhaps you're unaware that SPECULATION isn't science.  The "Big Bang" is pretty much a done deal.  What happened before?  Wild-eyed speculation.  Sort of like, I dunno, irrational religious beliefs you so readily reject?

Christians are a minority of the Abrahamic faith adherents, and the majority followers of Abraham's G-d believe that having an extra one or two gods is a sin.  You might want to keep up on the religious beliefs of brown skinned people.

Jews don't convert.  It comes as a shock to many atheists that I'm not going to try and get you to give up pork and cheeseburgers, but I'm not.  You want to be an atheist?  Enjoy!  Just don't treat people like shit.  Because Judaism is a "how you treat others" kind of religion, not a "do you believe in G-d" one.  Not that there is a "Believe in G-d " commandment in the Torah.

G-d doesn't have a penis because G-d isn't male =or= female.  Hebrew has linguistic gender -- there are words for G-d that have male gender, and words for G-d that have female gender.  But linguistic gender isn't penis or vagina gender.  A table in Spanish doesn't have a vagina, for example.  All cats in Spanish aren't male just because "gato" is.

G-d created male =and= female at the same time in G-d's image.  See Genesis 1:27.  And "Adam" in 1:27 is "et Ha'Adam", where "ha'adam" just means "the man", not "some penis-bearing-dude named Adam", but the generic "man", like "mankind" and "mailman" and "chairman".  And it definitely says "male and female G-d created them."  Not my fault that Christians (and you) are illiterate -- 10th and 11th words in the verse, male and female, respectively.  Which is pronounced "so much for the Bible says that Adam was created in G-d's image, but Eve came later."  Bible says -- same time.

ANYWAY, I'm now becoming just as bad as you with the giant super-mega post.

*Applause*

I read some of those on the OP but except for the evolution of brain and eye there is almost nothing of my interest there. Hopefully we can discuss some of aspects of evolution of brain in the next post.

Development of organs is one of the most crucial topics remaining either unexplained or inadequately explained. There are others like complex animal behavior like mutualism recorded in the genes of some animals, eg. - Myrmecophilous caterpillars of the family Lycaenidae are herded by the ants, led to feeding areas in the daytime , and brought inside the ants' nest at night...

Plants have some processes which consume oxygen for energy, and they rely on those at night.

Those processes would be similar to oxygen-consuming processes in animal life.

But the vast bulk of the energy most plants use is from photo-synthesis, utilizing the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and H2O into sugars.

Some supplement this to a significant degree by capturing and digesting insects.

The basic structures for photosynthesis evolved very early, in the form of cyano-bacteria, close to 3.5 billion years ago.

A small useless organ will not 'push the organism to extinction'. That is not what we are saying. It actually represents a basic misunderstanding. 'Organisms' don't go extinct, lineages do. Extinction is when there are no surviving descendants of an individual, or specific group of organisms.

This is not about extinction of the species, it is about differential reproduction. Even a small negative burden will lead to a consistant bias in reproductive success against individuals with that organ. That is actually the definition of a negative trait. So individual organisms with that useless organ will be a smaller proportion of the population in each generation.

Unless an organ had some useful function at a very early stage, it would never spread beyond the first individual in which it appeared, and a diminishing proportion of its direct descendants, so would never become a feature of that species.

There are cells in the skin that are sensitive to thermal radiation (infra-red 'light' ). There are about 5 types of cell in the epidermis. They have the same DNA as every other cell in the body, so given the right selection pressures, can evolve whatever structures and sensitivities we already observe in other parts of the body already, and almost certainly others, if some new situation suited that. Again, unless there is some positive benefit to a structure appearing in a particular location, it will not spread across the species, even if a mutation should bring it into being.

Hi,
 
My name is Jacob and I am from Iowa. I was instructed by our College English teacher to conduct an interview with a person of an opposite belief than myself. I have found it very hard to find someone who opposes the idea of Creation, and one who belives in Evolution. If you believe in the earth being created by Evolution, please awnser these following questions when you find the time:
 
     What are the reasons why you believe in Evolution?
 
 
     When and how did you decide to believe this instead of any other form of "universe creation"?
 
 
     Are you a Christian? And if not, do you have a religious group or stance?
 
 
     Do you believe it is fair to teach Evolution in schools, even if it is science? And why?
 
 
     Do you believe that most children who are taught Evolution in class believe it in the real world?
 
 
If none of these questions pertain to you, I am sorry for taking up your time. Have a nice day.
 
If these questions to pertain, thank you for awnsering them, this will give me much needed information for my research paper I am about to right. Please leave your name (just first name if you feel like it) and I thank you very much.
 
Thanks again, 
 
 
Jacob
 

Lol, the demands get better and better.

"Please explain, in precise detail, everything that factored into the evolution of 'insert creature here' from the moment of the big bang to now, in 100,000,000 words or less"

The real way evolution works is not like junkyard + tornado = jet, not even repeated bazillions of times.

Evolution works by keeping what works.  So we have infinite monkeys and they are typing away.  When they randomly type a correct letter - for Shakespeare's Hamlet or the Oxford Dictionary, whatever - we keep it.  And have them type until they get another correct letter.  You can imagine that at first, almost all of the letters will be kept, and as we progress, more will be discarded.

This way, we have the result we want in much less time.  You can even say - when they type a correct letter in the correct sequence - lengthening the odds somewhat - we keep it.  And you will still have what you are searching for much more quickly.

Evolution keeps what works.  What doesn't work, doesn't reproduce, and therefore is not retained in the species.  It is not truly random.  For a more in depth discussion, try http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/