It's so cute when creationists think they've got a "gotcha" that proves evolution is a theory sent to us by the Devil.

Even if I grant this argument that the cockroach has never changed (and I highly doubt that), the response is a simple "So?" Evolutionary theory doesn't say species have to change.

"fetch me musket."

4.5 billion years?

Burn the heretic!

Confabulat: 4.5 billion years?

Burn the heretic!

If he's willing to cop to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, I'll be willing to concede the "God created it" thing. 4,500,000,000 years ago, of course. In a very primitive form, with all the ingredients for life to eventually form and evolve.

Hell, I'll even give them the "God nudged the process along occasionally" concession. As long as they admit that the Earth is at least that old, and that life as it currently exists evolved from much earlier forms of life/protolife.

I am sure there are some folks that would like to see that 4.5 billion year old cockroach fossil...

I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

At the core of these people's belief system is hatred of the notion that white people are Africans that got stuck in a frozen cave in Europe for 30000 years. White people are composed of pure white Jesus Powder(tm) - end of story.

Psychotropic: I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

If Creationism is true, then why is it that no one ever finds a fossil of a god?

jake_lex: It's so cute when creationists think they've got a "gotcha" that proves evolution is a theory sent to us by the Devil.

Even if I grant this argument that the cockroach has never changed (and I highly doubt that), the response is a simple "So?" Evolutionary theory doesn't say species have to change.

I watched the video and I disagree with your statement here.
He wasn't making any statement of a proof of anything, he was saying that according to what had been written by the leading members in evolutionary research, evolution was seemed to be a dead end.

There was no mention of god, the devil or creationism at all, just statements of fact from the accounts of scientists and their published findings.

Of course taking someone's words from books after 5 readings, you could find many ways to bend their words to fit whatever agenda you had. We might ask him what he thought of the H1N1 flu virus, how would it be explained without evolution etc. And he might have a few words to say about that... but that's all, just words. But what about applied theory and empirical data? He just doesn't have those things.

So while he has a right to an opinion, I don't think his opinion is correct but we shouldn't just discount someone who takes the time to do the homework and has some valid questions as a nut. Is there evidence showing a cockroach ancestor? If there isn't why not?

And a simple "so" is not even close to an adequate response. A cockroach is a highly complex organism and if all life did emerge from the primordial ooze and was not just put here by some invisible hand "as it was created", then we should be able to show an ancestor to that species.

You know what? If evolution is wrong and dead then fine, so be it, but it changes nothing, because there still are no gods out there. We will just have to find another explanation for life, one which can't use a made-up concept as a starting point.

I get tired of people still believing in god. I have to ask why. There is no reason to, all the evidence overwhelmingly points to 'no'. Why waste time with stupid theological or philosophical arguments over creation, or lifes meaning? Our lives have as much meaning as a cockroach. We are both products of the same forces, same biology, and the only meaning our lives have are meanings we ascribe to it ourselves.

Your life has great meaning to you and those around you, and you do with it as you wish, and that's how it should be. We should all do with our lives as we wish, not be told what to do with our lives by a guy pretending to represent a path to an imaginary collective hallucination.

I don't think anyone is stupid for believing in god, I just can't understand why they would ignore all the evidence and put their faith in something that isn't there. It doesn't make you a more moral person, a better person, a happier person unless you make it make you. If you can do those things in the name of a god you imagine then you can do it in the name of something else, like 'civility' or 'common courtesy'.

/evolution isn't wrong, it's fact
//there is no god
///need popcorn

rcain: A cockroach is a highly complex organism and if all life did emerge from the primordial ooze and was not just put here by some invisible hand "as it was created", then we should be able to show an ancestor to that species.


Umm. We can. Blattoptera (^).

Also, the modern cockroach dates back to the Cretaceous (150 Mya, not 4.5 billion.)

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Dude forgot to mention Keith Richards also.

Psychotropic: I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

Mormons have that one figured out.

To paraphrase: as man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.

So, in a manner of speaking, God *gigglesnort* evolved from something like us monkeys. Other than that, evolution is right out ;)

SpinStopper: Psychotropic: I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

Mormons have that one figured out.

A strange phenomena actually, LDS church isn't (necessarily) a literalist dogma, and their membership isn't known for belonging to any of the YEC rhetoric groups, yet as a whole, the only mainstream denomination that accepts evolution less than they do are Jehovas Witnesses.

Still haven't figured that out one.

Andyr2120: Psychotropic: I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

If Creationism is true, then why is it that no one ever finds a fossil of a god?

They have (new window).

/Though I suggest you read this (new window) first.

In before our resident champion of "academic freedom" weighs in on the matter with the well-reasoned, insightful commentary that is his trademark.

/you know who I'm talking about

DamnYankees: There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

I'd say it's a good thing. No more screaming of hell and demons should we not repent, but a well researched and evidence based opinion on which to debate. I'm not saying I agree with him (small insect, already pretty damn good at survival), but this shows progress towards more reasoned and fruitful discussion.

/I tip my hat to that man who did his research

Out of all of the many religions that humans have, why are you so sure you've got the right one?

"Creationist" and "well-informed" never coincide.

rcain: then we should be able to show an ancestor to that species.

Which of course is absolutely not problem whatsoever.

Duuuude! Are you smoking a four point five BILLION year old roach?

That'll get you coughing fer sure.

Our Man in Nirvana: rcain: A cockroach is a highly complex organism and if all life did emerge from the primordial ooze and was not just put here by some invisible hand "as it was created", then we should be able to show an ancestor to that species.


Umm. We can. Blattoptera (^).

Also, the modern cockroach dates back to the Cretaceous (150 Mya, not 4.5 billion.)

Thanks for the link. I didn't realize cockroaches were that young.

jake_lex:
Even if I grant this argument that the cockroach has never changed (and I highly doubt that), the response is a simple "So?" Evolutionary theory doesn't say species have to change.

THIS.

Just another example of how Creationists simply do not understand 'survival of the fittest.'

The scary part for me is that this debate still continues today. We really are just naked apes in a suit.

Biological Ali: In before our resident champion of "academic freedom" weighs in on the matter with the well-reasoned, insightful commentary that is his trademark.

/you know who I'm talking about

Tatsuma? rcain?

rcain: We might ask him what he thought of the H1N1 flu virus, how would it be explained without evolution etc. And he might have a few words to say about that...

And you know what he will say?

He'll agree it's evolution, but with caveats. He'll say it's "micro-evolution," which is the only "kind" of evolution creationists recognize because it's the part of evolution that effing stares them in the face with every viral mutation.

Then he'll say it has absolutely nothing to do with "macro-evolution," which he'll have some sort of definition for but actually means "any aspect of evolution that hasn't been shown to my eyes happening in real time."

Which is kind of a twistedly scientificish/objective stance for someone who also believes the universe is 6,000 years old and god put fossils inside rocks to mislead us.

I Saw something similar a few weeks ago where a guy was saying evolution is BS because someone dug up an ancient turtle fossil and it LOOKED JUST LIKE A MODERN TURTLE!

Though my favorite argument so far is the "if life can spontaneoulsy form in a closed system then we should be able to find life in this jar of peanut butter" he then opens the jar and displays it triumphantly to the camera. "See?"

ilambiquated: For lots of interesting pictures, Gi[s] "homeobox"

Make sure you spell it right, too. Things might get NSFW otherwise.

ilambiquated: Homeobox genes in arthropods.



Insect evolution.

For lots of interesting pictures, Gif "homeobox"

No fair! Fundamentalists are not allowed to gif "homeobox", so they can't refute your arguments.

/Neither are farkers at work.

James F. Campbell: Out of all of the many religions that humans have, why are you so sure you've got the right one?

Because it was the one I was born into and I was grown up as, giving me a cultural and social niche to live in. It is therefore right for me. Not believing in a personal god or an afterlife makes finding the right religion easy, it's the one that makes your life best.

As to the matter at hand, I always like to fall back on this quote from Thomas Huxley, Darwin's greatest contemporary defender: "I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth."

ilambiquated: Insect evolution.

I remember seeing something about this on Nova a while ago. As far as I'm concerned it's the single greatest evidence for evolution that we have. Every animal on the planet starts out as this larva with various segments which get their expression from the Hox genes. And we know so much about the Hox that we can induce antenna to grow in place of legs, or to completely suppress the thorax, and so on.

It's the single greatest proof of a single origin of species that I've ever seen.

Our Man in Nirvana:
rcain: A cockroach is a highly complex organism and if all life did emerge from the primordial ooze and was not just put here by some invisible hand "as it was created", then we should be able to show an ancestor to that species.


Umm. We can. Blattoptera (^).

Also, the modern cockroach dates back to the Cretaceous (150 Mya, not 4.5 billion.)

And the thread is over. Palaeontology for the win.

So roaches have never changed!

Lets do some quick checks:

Wikipedia has this in "Cockroaches":

These earliest cockroach-like fossils ("Blattopterans" or "roachids") are from the Carboniferous period between 354-295 million years ago. However, these fossils differ from modern cockroaches in having long ovipositors and are the ancestors of mantids as well as modern cockroaches. The first fossils of modern cockroaches with internal ovipositors appear in the early Cretaceous.

And this in "Blattoptera":

Contrary to modern forms, the female roachids all have a well developed external ovipositor, a primitive insect trait[7]. They probably inserted eggs singly into soil or crevices. The egg pods, called ootheca, seen in modern cockroaches and their relatives is a new shared trait separating them from their primitive ancestors. Some of the roachid species could reach relatively large sizes compared to their modern relatives, like the Carboniferous Archimylacris and the Permian Apthoroblattina, the latter who could reach 50 cm in body length.

Yes it can be dangerous to rely on Wikipedia, but the articles do have references to scientific literature that you can check.

SwordBuddha: I Saw something similar a few weeks ago where a guy was saying evolution is BS because someone dug up an ancient turtle fossil and it LOOKED JUST LIKE A MODERN TURTLE!

Though my favorite argument so far is the "if life can spontaneoulsy form in a closed system then we should be able to find life in this jar of peanut butter" he then opens the jar and displays it triumphantly to the camera. "See?"

Please tell me you are making that up.

/Pretty please?

Reactron: At the core of these people's belief system is hatred of the notion that white people are Africans that got stuck in a frozen cave in Europe for 30000 years. White people are composed of pure white Jesus Powder(tm) - end of story.

That... actually makes allot of sence.

ilambiquated cool man, science is farking awesome

What's the prerequisite for testifying in front of the Texas Board of Education?

Have a pulse?

Somebody Darwin this retard.

Andyr2120: Psychotropic: I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

If Creationism is true, then why is it that no one ever finds a fossil of a god?

ninjakirby: SpinStopper: Psychotropic: I'll believe in Creationism when Creationists can explain the creation of their god.

Mormons have that one figured out.

A strange phenomena actually, LDS church isn't (necessarily) a literalist dogma, and their membership isn't known for belonging to any of the YEC rhetoric groups, yet as a whole, the only mainstream denomination that accepts evolution less than they do are Jehovas Witnesses.

Still haven't figured that out one.

Mormons are in denial about a lot of things. They are literalists with an escape. They believe in the scriptures "as long as they are translated correctly". So any problem with fact must be a translation problem.

Leaders of the Church have proclaimed belief in a literal flood and many other events in the Bible we now know to be false.

An even bigger believed bit of dogma, however, is that the peoples of America are descended from the tribes of Israel. Modern genetics show this to be false.

Maybe if you accept Evolution as being true, you also have to accept genetics as well and the whole basis of faith (The Book of Mormon) falls apart as well. There is plenty of data to show that Mormonism is bunk. (The Pearl of Great Price is an interesting story, as is Joseph Smith's other wives, and Joseph Smith's banking scams.) The Mormons have a bunch of apologists that make excuses for all that, which makes everything better.

bberg: ilambiquated: Insect evolution.

I remember seeing something about this on Nova a while ago. As far as I'm concerned it's the single greatest evidence for evolution that we have. Every animal on the planet starts out as this larva with various segments which get their expression from the Hox genes. And we know so much about the Hox that we can induce antenna to grow in place of legs, or to completely suppress the thorax, and so on.

It's the single greatest proof of a single origin of species that I've ever seen.

It's also a wonderfully interesting system. And it's the same system in the vertabrates (including mammals).



Mouse and Fly...

Confabulat: 4.5 billion years?

Burn the heretic!

I thought creationists thought the Earth was 6000 years old.

James F. Campbell: Out of all of the many religions that humans have, why are you so sure you've got the right one?

Grandma's never wrong, dude.

rcain: And a simple "so" is not even close to an adequate response. A cockroach is a highly complex organism and if all life did emerge from the primordial ooze and was not just put here by some invisible hand "as it was created", then we should be able to show an ancestor to that species.

Darwin's ToE doesn't say that lifeforms must evolve; it makes the observation that lifeforms evolve in order to adapt to environmental conditions. So, if cockroaches haven't needed to evolve, then they wouldn't have, same as sharks and crocodiles who also haven't evolved much compared to other animal species. His argument is based on a misunderstanding of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

We need to cut loose the Red states that believe in creationism instead of the proven practice of Evolution. We need to tie the National Debt around their necks and watch them sink.

nmrsnr: Though my favorite argument so far is the "if life can spontaneoulsy form in a closed system then we should be able to find life in this jar of peanut butter" he then opens the jar and displays it triumphantly to the camera. "See?"

Please tell me you are making that up.

/Pretty please?

He is not (new window)

Be scared. Be very scared.

But not nearly as scared as the Banana being the evilutionist nightmare (new window). Needless to say, the banana that you eat (the Cavandish banana) is a human invention that differs quite a bit from its ancestors.

/No word if peanut butter and banana sandwiches will become the new "atheist" nightmare.

I dunno.. cockroaches around my place seemed to have evolved a resistence to roach poison.

Primate ancestor lived with dinos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1935558.stm



Suck it, creatard.

Let's face it. The cockroach is the perfect life form and will inherit the Earth from us once we're done killing ourselves off.