I don't 'believe' that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, it's not a matter of belief. It's an undeniable fact. The Big Bang is a theory regarding the origins of the universe. Evolution only refers to the development of life after our particular planet was born. Two different theories. Unrelated. Ahhh, forget it.

This is going round in circles. As I said earlier, I don't expect to convince you. Why debate the finer points of these theories with someone who can't even grasp the fact that evolution is a science? I'd have more luck debating flat-earth theorists (and man, those guys are stubborn).

One last time, I don't *need* to establish these things, they've already been established. I'm merely pointing to them (they're everywhere, throw a rock) and saying: "What are you BLIND??" in the most diplomatic way I can.

I know this news is hard to accept. But life on this planet was an accident. There is no deeper meaning or purpose. We are just different combinations on molecules and chemical reactions with shoes. Get used to it, get over it, move on. Or be left behind.

I'm taking a break from this forum, need to get my blood pressure back down.

I.e. you've already made up your mind and expect me to do likewise. Yes I suppose that would lead to circles.

I hope your blood pressure comes down.

For now, good bye. Perhaps I shall see you in another forum sometime.

Bravo, Xena-EXACTLY!

<My definition of "robust design" of the species envisages the optimum specimen of that gene pool.> - what was first:

-an egg or a bird?
-a fingerprint or a finger?
-a map or a landscape?
-a specific gene or a blank chemical altered and reflecting the alterations till new mutation to occur?
-a-god-on-Earth-royal or a dirty aggressive murderer-feudal being selected centuries ago for personal dangerous facets to lead a bulk of likes, and whose genes today are etalon of the BEST in the universe-whether exist in an African/Asian/European descent?

Myth: Intelligent design theory is the same as creationism
Fact: Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

Myth: All credible scientists support the theory of evolution
Fact: There is a growing list of over 400 scientists who have signed a ‘scientific dissent from Darwinism’. (see here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443). Prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.

Intelligent design theory is also supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State Univeristy, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, among others.

YngNLuvnIt,
"I'd like to see that actually, do you have somewhere you could refer me to?"
So you are willing to concede that you would not be able to come up with a reasonable alternative explanation?

My quick search found plenty of sites with lists of fossils etc., but they are mostly scientific reference sites and aren't geared towards demonstrating basic facts. I could find articles that say it, or have simple diagrams showing it, but nothing specific. Your best bet is the local museum or zoo, although talkorigins might have something.

"I'd want to know A) that the earlier forms actually are earlier forms, and they're not just called that because they're simpler,"
No I referred to them as earlier forms because they are older.

"B) that the later forms really do show progressive deviation- not just one giant leap step."
There's not really much I need to say except "they do". But I think this is probably just the transitional fossils point again, ie. trying to argue that the forest isn't a forest because of the space between trees.

Re: bacteria, I'm well aware that modern creationists attempt to separate the macro and micro realisations of evolution, but this was not always so. If creationists want to argue against macro-evolution only then they are free to do so, but it is up to them to use the correct terms.

I'd be incredibly surprised if philo actually knew when mutated *genes* occurred, most likely he saw outward physical mutations from the line breeding. He seems to confuse mutation with genetic drift.

Spendocrat, it's good not to let the issue move away from evolution, but that's not limited to the big bang: evolution is separate from abiogenesis.

Myth: ID is a theory, an effort to empirically detect design.
Fact: ID is promoted primarily by creationists as a more palatable attack on evolution.

Myth: All credible scientists support the theory of evolution.
Fact: Almost all credible scientists in the relevant field support it.
Fact: A list of 4000 scientists supporting it whose names start with K could be easily made.

Deuc,
During my time working with Dr Ghotel on developing a totally female species of tomatoes at HAC for selective breeding, by exposing the seed to radio active isotopes. We intended to knock out the male chromosome from the plant, so we could introduce selected male fertilisation from specific plants. The normal tomato plant has both male and female chromosomes and is able to fertilise itself. Our programme was to select breed tomatoes with specific features.

I know what mutations are, I have seen grose distortions of plants. One plant 300 mm high with distorted leaves and one only large tomato 80mm round at the top of the plant as a result of radiation exposure with no seeds.