The process of selection or any form of natural pressure onto environments causing change surely is visible on this planet in more areas than just the animal kingdom. It's not confined just to species in my opinion, but the definition of 'evolution' itself is rather specifically thought for species....

You should try to explain why you think something complex or complicated must be designed though, as that makes no sense at all. There's no need for a designer when one can easily see how a chain reaction of evolution through many many years had the results we all can see now.

This is not a silly argument
Apparentely evolution should lead to a graduation of living creatures rather than a rigid subdivision into species
This can be explained with the mathematical concept of relative MAX

Species are a pure categorization method,
just like seperating a Library into book themes (fiction, nonfiction) and then in more detail
(18th century french novels and modern art poems) or such.

Evolution on Earth must have started either from some protein-balls that formed
in a specific environment or a certain base organism (maybe brought by a Komet impact)

From there on was a constant seperation into evolved buildingplans. But all came from the same source.

The reason why we have a hard time to find the "inbetween"
creatures is simply, because the fossils are rather rare
snapshots of animals and plants in a certain time.
If all creatures where ot be preserved as fossils, we would be drowning in
past-time corpses.

Also the speed of chances can either be very slow and gradual
or change quite rapitly (still takes man generations then).

Evolution will usually change little in stable times, where constantly mastering a static environment is of key.
(the current successful is then likely to be the future successful)
Evolution make rapid jumps when "catrastophies" or simply
rapit climate change appear.
Then some mutations might drastically improve the sucess,
as an adaption has a higher possible return in hard times.

So evolution needs both: static times and catastrophic changes.
then it will end up with the high veriety as we have today.

From a distance it may look like a rigid subdivision into species, but it's certainly not. It may seem arbitrairy, but they're simply not random labels. Remember how there are a million ways of dividing groups of animals into 'species', which in the classic sense isn't much more than a group that allegedly belongs to the same family, having the same or a close common ancestor.

As we've already found out about a few times in the last decade, DNA is a much better method of determining family relationships of species.



That has little to do with how rare fossils are.. in my opinion they're not quite that rare. When it comes to 'missing links' though, creationists often simply do not acknowledge how evolution is a gradual process, meaning there won't be much fossils showing 'in between' forms, as entire generations of animals have been the 'in between' forms.

@Ran Man

Well thats seems to be the costs of being an poorly evolved mammalian species that some of us are not able to live without some greater purpose. But lets look at the facts we are basically great( there are other great apes gorillas, chimpanzees aso) apes, who are living on a planet that supports life for some time on some of its surface. The solar system will be no more according to our discoveries in about 4 billion years correct me if I am wrong about the exact number, so at least life on earth is limited to a very short cosmic timespan.


The human body in any way is far from “perfect” what ever you mean by “perfect”, the blind spot in the eye, the appendix, all kinds of disease that people got from the time of birth. So if someone talks about a missing link he should look in the mirror because we are also just another link, science is one of the great achievements of the human intellect because it is based on reason and evidence and not what is personally convenient.

I am an ape and it makes me happy and it is supported but overwhelming amount of evidence and you are saying no I am created and that makes me happy but you have no evidence, who seems to be closer to the truth ?


PS: Evolution is no ladder!
Maybe there should be more funny science games on that topic:)

I was talking about " inbetween " fossils of creatures living in the same geological era

Starting from a common ancestor and under the pressure of a blind evolution, I would expect a variety of semi-unique creatures a " continuos ", I mean, rather than a subdivision in species, even though with some similarities among different species

I wonder wherher someone made a computer simulation
Maybe some key features act as sort of " attractor "

HI,

Okay, let's pretend something for a moment. YOU ARE RIGHT!

Let's assume for a minute that evolution is correct.
That is --> That nobody made or designed the human body, but rather it has no designer. Okay?

You converted me, like you did Silverman.

Okay, but if the human body has no designer, then what about this human robot below?

Click on this link below if interested.
A CUTE HUMAN ROBOT GIRL MADE IN JAPAN! :-)

Okay, now when making a human robot, one has to assume that they were trying to replicate the human body.

Now, let me also announce something.

THIS PARTICULAR HUMAN ROBOT WAS NOT DESIGNED! IT WAS ONLY A PRODUCT OF TIME!

Wow!

And now you think i'm stupid right? Okay, you may be right. <just joking>

But, I'm only using your wonderful evolutionary logic yes?
This wonderful girl japanese robot at the movie above has no designer.

Aggh, but wait. Realize that an actual human body is more complicated than this robot. A real human needs far less maintenance and is capable of having offspring.

Understand and realize that - you laugh when I suggest the robot was not designed, but you also laugh when I suggest that your body was designed?

What? Excuse me Mr. logical atheist, but you are surely illogical !
Admit it. Admit it !

Admit that you have a blind faith. Yes, atheism takes faith.
I have less faith than you do, in order to believe in God, who is a designer.

You atheist have no designer and therefore live in a fantasy world.

We people who believe in God, have less faith than an atheist does !
We have truth and reality on our side. That's all.

You completely ignored my last post, except the bible quote part, which shows that you are ignorant. Admit it!

A robot can't be made by evolution because it does not reoproduce. We envolved frm a simple cell that was able to reproduce. Is that so hard to understand? Evolution did not began by something complex like a human body. It began simple and it became complex. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDESTAND?

About the bible quote: I even feel offended by calling me "fool".


"Admit that you have a blind faith. Yes, atheism takes faith.
I have less faith than you do, in order to believe in God, who is a designer."
According to Richard Dawkins' definition "blind faith" means believing in something without any evidence. Evolution has MUCH evidence, which creationism has NO evidence. The people with blind faith are you, not us.
Faith at all means believing in something. We don't believe in god, so we don't have faith.
Else I could say that you must havemuch blind faith for not believing in Allah, Vishnu, Zeus or Horus.

"We people who believe in God, have less faith than an atheist does !
We have truth and reality on our side. That's all."
You have neither truth nor reality on your side. You have a thousand years old fantasy book on your side. We have overwhelming evidence on our side.

EDIT: I realised that you did answer to my question about who created the designer.
If there is no time, how can god do something? If you press the pause button while watching a film, everything stops. So this can't be true. And it doesn't even explain where god comes from.

Ran Man, you have a silly simlpe argumentation logic:

there is something that was created, it simpler compared to other things,
so other things must be created too.

You bring no logical argumentaion about all the
evolution topics stated here. Just phrases that you where taught in bible school.

Creationist dont follow scientific logig. Their whole argumentation
revolves around,
#1 creation must be true before proven, so it needs no prove.
#2 evolution is argumented against by picking topics that
simply had either no data (found yet) or had not
enough time to be explained / researched.

With this approach we would still be at a scientific stage
of Aristotele.

by the way, that japanese robot is not "humanlike", its
just a pupped with a lot of motors and some program
that makes it act preprogrammed or adapted movements. You could use a coffe machine in your example instead.

---

If you really want a "place" for gods creation, you could
take the events before the big bang.
As the time before that cant be explained scientifically,
for the lack of information about that stage.
So you may interpret the whatever cause into that.
But the events after the big bang, "belong" to science.

Ran Man, get off the caffine, SERIOUSLY.
We are not out to convert you, we are just trying to make you understand that
we have justifications for believing in our "faith", science.
Just because our 'belief' supports a different 'god' to yours doesnt make us wrong, OR YOU RIGHT.
And also, because yours is a different 'god' to ours, doenst make us right, or you wrong.
So just calm down a bit.


We do not laugh at your suggestion that our body was designed, we just DISAGREE on WHO it was designed BY.
You say God, we say Evolution.


Where are we being illogical?



No, atheism doesnt take faith, it takes a lack of blindness...