rising up out of the back seat-nuh

Yosh! Huss.

Huss

Huss.

Photosynthesis will never evolve again, at lest on a noticeable scale. There's no reason for it to. Unlike when they first evolved and were beneficial enough to plants to give them a significant advantage. Feathers evolved from fur, when increased surface area showed a benefit, either for gliding or insulation. Mutations are not always detrimental. If they are, they don't progress any further through the food chain. The majority of speciation is seen to have occured at times of great environmental changes (for example an ice age) when environmental niches are emptied, and new ones created. At the moment, despite what Greenpeace may say, there isn't this large scal environmental change. In answer to your point about fishes, http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/fi...-transition.htm gives a good sequence of transitional forms. While the fossil record is poor at this point, it's mainly due to the Geology of that age, with few areas of exceptional preservation or abundance being found. However, I am confident if you found a suitable area, then those fossils would be present. If amphibians were placed onto the earth fully formed, why did this happen so long after fish were placed there. And why did they exhibit such (relatively) rapid speciation soon afterwards. You say the chances of single celled life forming in the first place is astronomical. Yes, but not impossible. Amino acids or single celled organisms may have had extra-terrestrial origins. It may just be a one in infinity chance, and we're the lucky results. Don't forget, we're yet to find any other signs of life in the universe, so it can't be that common anyhow. I still don't understand how it's more likely that creatures were placed onto this planet fully formed, by some unseen force. It may be easier for you to believe, but more likely? Not by a long way.

The Small Faces are pretty under-rated. Great singles band.

You know, if someone did that about Americans dying in 9/11 you'd have a fit...

Also: Blame Canada!

As does walking. Dames: Why didn't you go round stealing stuff from shops? I know I would...

Indeed, but my question is how the double chambers come about in the first place, and in such a way so that the valves can selectively allow blood in or out. As for your later question, about God creating animals, my theory has been that he created them to see how humans would interact with lesser beings - some humans are kind to animals, some humans are cruel to them. I've heard from many people that the true mark of a man is not how they treat their equals but how they treat their inferiors, and I'd assume that the human interaction with animals is essentially God's way of putting us to that test. http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Deve...t_evolution.htm This is the best explaination I could find on-line. There's a "next" button at the bottom to scroll through it. If you're interested, http://www.talkorigins.org/ also has a lot of good pieces about evolution. Personally, I still don't understand how someone can read up on evolution and decide that creationism is more likely than evolutionary theory. I'm not saying for one second that current evolutionary theory is 100% correct, but it's logical, has a root in scientific fact and the majority of predictions made based on these theories that can be measured have proven correct (for example, feathered dinosaurs were predicted for years before they were found, based on this theory) Also, your explaination for that part of creationism, while a good moral, doesn't make much sense. Why did God put a series of animal, increasingly like man on the planet? Why did God create animals that died out years before humans arrived upon this planet? The problem with a lot of Creationism is that it's based upon Creationism is that it is based upon assumptions as opposed to facts. While the same is true of Evolutionary theory, this has been backed up with facts where as Creationism never has. If I found one compelling reason why Creationism occured, I would be more likely to believe it.

Is Stennick AustinHHH4Life, or whatever his name was?

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution. Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two: * Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China. * Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation. Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with. I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer? I'd tend to agree that some form of evolution must go on. However, I don't feel that it goes beyond what the peppered moth study showed. The human heart, for example, seems far too complex to have evolved over millions of years from a single cell. Also, many of the routines (I don't know the scientific term off the top of my head) that plants go through (photosynthesis) seem like they couldn't have evolved piece-by-piece - to me, they had to have been created to be able to do photosynthesis. Also, your genetic mutations theory seems to be far too far-fetched to me. I have yet to see a genetic mutation that helped a specie on the whole. I will admit, of course, that some creatures evolve minor things - the peppered moth is an example of that. However, I find that with the complexities of the human body - and for that matter, most animals - there had to have been a designer. Ah, this is the struggle between Macro-evolution and micro-evolution, which is basically a debate over how large scale changes occured. Even experts in this field can't agree on this, so I'm not gonna say how it happens. However, large scale evolutional paradoxes such as the human hearts, or eye, are generally unsolved because the fossil record doesn't show it, either to a lack of soft tissue parts or a gap in the fossil record (i.e. punctuated equillibrium) more than anything else. It is feasible that the human heart evolved, first as a muscle to pump blood (or whatever it was at that time) through the body, evolved into a single chamber (because this allowed greater efficiency) and then evolved into a double chamber (because it also allowed greater efficiency). All it takes is for a double chambered heart to evolve once in a form that allows greater functionality (an on the genetic blueprint, so that it can be passed down through succesive generations) for it to take a hold upon a population. It's important not to get too caught up with the word "mutations", because that suggests drastic changes. Evolution is, generally, caused by smaller changes. For example, height. The human population is, in the U.K. at least, getting taller. This is for a variety of reasons, diet, health care and genetic disposition. Now, presume that women prefer taller blokes to shorter ones. Then, taller men will be more likely to breed, and the average child will be more likely to have that "tall gene". Therefore, the average height of the population goes up. The same could be said of breast size. If you compare this to, for example, China, where height and breast size were less of a concern than the Western world for many years, you can see a marked difference in height and breast size. That's evolution. The main problem I have with Creationism is that I have not yet heard one single decent arguement as to why God created animals, apart from criticisms of Evolutionary theory, which are due more to a lack of data than a hole in the theory. Again, I'll ask any Creationist's out there to give a reason why Creationism is more probable than evolution.

OK, basically this is an award for album of the year, as decided by a panel of acclaimed industry experts. I thought I'd post it here if anyone's interested. The shortlist will be announce later this year. for more information, go here: http://www.shortlistofmusic.com/ The layout is ARTIST / ALBUM TITLE / WHO NOMINATED THEM Alexander Fadoriouk / Art of the Cimbalom / Tori Amos Beck / Sea Change / Spike Jonze Blur / Think Tank / Spike Jonze Bright Eyes / Lifted / Spike Jonze Burning Brides / Fall of the Plastic Empire / Perry Farrell Burnside Project / Networks Circuits Streams Harmonies / Cameron Crowe Campfire Girls / Delongpre / Perry Farrell Cat Power / You Are Free / Nic Harcourt Cave In / Antenna / Perry Farrell Chip Taylor + Carrie Rodriguez / Lets Leave this Town / Cameron Crowe Cody Chesnutt / Headphone Masterpiece / Erykah Badu Common / Electric Circus / Chemical Brothers Coral / The Coral / Chris Martin Damien Rice / O / Nic Harcourt Daniel Lanois / Shine / Dave Matthews David Banner / Mississippi (the Album) / Josh Tyrangiel Dead Prez / Turn Off the Radio / Erykah Badu Diplomats / Diplomatic Immunity / Kim Osorio Eels / Shootenanny / Tom Waits Etta James / Lets Roll / Tori Amos Field Mob / From tha Roota to that Toota / Kim Osorio Floetry / Floetic / Erykah Badu Four Tet / Rounds / Josh Tyrangiel Freeway / Philadelphia Freeway / Kim Osorio Gillian Welch / Soul Journey / Flea Goalpele / Even Closer / Erykah Badu Grandaddy / Sumday / Pete Yorn GZA/Genius / Legend of the Liquid Sword / Flea Hot Hot Heat / Make Up The Breakdown / Josh Homme Ibraham Ferrar / Buenos Hermanos / Tori Amos Interpol / Turn Off the Bright Lights / Cameron Crowe Iron & Wine / Creek Drank the Cradle / Nic Harcourt Jesse Malin / Fine Art of Self Destruction / Pete Yorn Jolie Holland / Catalpa / Tom Waits K-Os / Exit / Chemical Brothers Kathleen Edwards / Failer / Cameron Crowe Kenna New / Sacred Cow / The Neptunes Kindred the Family Soul / Surrender to Love / Musiq Little Brother / Listening / Ahmir "?uestlove" Thompson Longwave / Strangest Things / Pete Yorn Luciana Souza / North & South / Tori Amos Mark Olson & the Creekdippers / Decembers Child / Cameron Crowe Metro Area / Metro Area / Chemical Brothers Mogwai / Happy Songs for Happy People / Tori Amos Moistboyz / Moistboyz III / Josh Homme Ms. Dynamite / A Little Deeper / Nic Harcourt Nanci Griffith / Winter Marquee / Tori Amos Natacha Atlas / Something Dangerous / Nic Harcourt Neko Case / Blacklisted / Cameron Crowe Nick Cave / Noturama / Flea Northern State / Dying in Stereo / Ahmir "?uestlove" Thompson Orchestra Baobab / Specialist in All Styles / Tom Waits Pete Yorn / Day I Forgot / Nic Harcourt Primal Scream / evil Heat / Josh Homme Radiohead / Hail to the Theif / Spike Jonze Rilo Kiley / The Execution of all Things / Josh Tyrangiel Rooney / Rooney / Perry Farrell Royksopp / Melody AM / Josh Tyrangiel Sidestepper / 3AM in Beats We Trust / Nic Harcourt Sigur Ros / () / Spike Jonze Solomon Burke / Dont Give up on Me / Flea Sondre Lerche / Faces Down / Josh Tyrangiel Soulive / Soulive / Dave Matthews Soundtrack of our Lives / Behind the Music / Pete Yorn Spoon / Kill the Moonlight / Josh Tyrangiel Squarepusher / Do You Know Squarepusher / The Neptunes Stephen Malkmus + the Jicks / Pig Lib / Josh Tyrangiel Steve Earle / Jerusalem / Tori Amos Supernatural / The Lost Freestyle Files / Perry Farrell Talib Kweli / Quality / Kim Osorio Tegan and Sara / If It Was You / Pete Yorn The Black Keys / Thickfreakness / Nic Harcourt The Cramps / Friends of Dope Island / Josh Homme The Jealous Sound / Kill Them With Kindness / Pete Yorn The Libertines / Up The Bracket / Mos Def The Mars Volta / De-Loued in the Comatorium / Flea The Mooney Suzuki / Electric Sweat / Perry Farrell The Music / Music / Perry Farrell The Postal Service / Give Up / Nic Harcourt The Sounds / The Sounds / The Neptunes The Streets / Original Pirate Material / Josh Tyrangiel Tomahawk / Mit Gas / Josh Homme Turbonegero / Apocalypse Dudes / Josh Homme Turin Breaks / Ether Song / Dave Matthews Wire / Send / Josh Homme Yeah Yeah Yeahs / Fever to Tell / Spike Jonze Personally, all the albums I've heard out of that lot I like, so I'll keep my eye out for the eventual winner, especially considering I love the last two winners (2001: Sigur Ros, 2002: N*E*R*D) Discuss...

I wouldn't go that far, but he's got flow, an eye for controversy and an eye for a good tune. He's not the saviour of rap, but he's not bad at all.

I thought he was an idiot at first. Then I realised he's funny. He's a gimmick, but it's better than 90% of posters here. Myself included.

Poor, repressed W.A.S.P's...

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution. Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two: * Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China. * Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation. Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with. I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer?

Because animals were not made in His image. Why weren't they? Because He didn't want them to be. And yes, I KNOW it's really irritating to try and debate stuff like this when one person constantly resorts to "Because God says so", but honestly, that's the only reason I can give you for it - He didn't want to. Also, for the record, I don't really believe in creationism. Sorry to just point out one part of your post, but how the hell can you believe God created humans in his image and all that stuff, and not believe in Creationism. Also, if you don't believe in the creationist aspect of Christianity and you also believe that The Bible is totally God's word, how can you believe in Christianity?

I don't mind the singles he's done recently. I hated Babylon with a passion, but he's done some good stuff since. Besides, he's got the greatest drummer ever.

Wasn't Crosstown Traffic released post-humously over there?

You damn right. Plus, I can't maintain my hair like Luger. Especially not in that picture you posted... would you be referring to the great, COCK THREAD~? You call your penis THE GREAT COCK THREAD? Someone's got a high opinion of himself...

Where's Avril

Ooberman Blur and Pulp are pretty under-rated nowadays

That's all I've heard since you've been back. You ought to get your computer looked at. Or your ears. Maybe I just need to reupdate my "moron semi-troll to english dictionary." You know, a flame war between TNM and Banky could be good. It can't be any worse than yesterday's bollocks.

You damn right. Plus, I can't maintain my hair like Luger. Especially not in that picture you posted...

Having a soul does not automatically make you good - after all, many people are evil. 2) I won't deny that humans are simply just a more intelligent type of creature - but how can ANYTHING show that if people have a soul, animals have one too? I really don't understand this. 3) So? As is my understanding, we're discussing the Christian Heaven and Hell. What difference does it make what other religons believe? 4) Now, honest question - Are animals capable of abstract thought, or are they only capable to consider things that they know to exist (IE, where their food is)? Because if they're not capable, then that sets us apart. 5) Also, somehow I doubt animals have a concept of good and evil - Again, set apart. 6) Is it much of a difference? Probably not. Does that difference leave the potential for people to have souls, while animals don't? I'd say so. 7) Oh and for the record, I've been browsing through the Bible (Like I said, Catholic home) and while I can't find anything specific, I can see that God "blessed" humans, which he didn't do to animals, and God also TOLD humans that we were to rule over the creatures of the land, sea, and sky. Somehow, I can't see God telling us that we're allowed to boss around all animals if they, indeed, did have souls. But then again, this Bible is all fragged up. Apparantly God created the animals twice...damned illogical Bible. 8) But anyway, I stand by my original point - Because people have souls is no reason to assume that animals have souls, even if we aren't very different genetically. Because while genetically we may be similar, in God's eyes, we're obviously two totally different things. And what He says goes, really. 1) While having a soul doesn't automatically make you good, absence of a soul (in theory) should make you automatically evil, as it takes away the ability to do good things. It's like the old stand-by of "a soul-less monster". 2) The only reason people would have a soul and not other animals is by using the theory of Creationism, where God created all animals. After studying palaeontology for the last 4 years, I can't understand, under any circumstances, this theory and I can't understand why anyone would blindly believe Creationism over Evolution against all known facts just because a book said so, but that's beside the point. If you believe humans have a soul, but no other animals, where do you draw the line? Do primates, our most closely related ancestor, have souls? If not, why not? If you believe in evolution, how did humans evolve souls? If you believe in Creationism, why didn't God give other animals souls? Is he a bastard? 3) Christianity is, by and large, based on other religions. While we may be discussing a Christian Heaven and Hell, this is a discussion about souls which are, I believe, not a Christian concept but an older one. It's very likely that the people who wrote the Bible, already believed in souls as common knowledge, not through Christianity. 4) Abstract thought on a large scale does indeed set us apart from other animals, but it doesn't mean it's not there on a smaller scale. If you're asking whether animals have the abolity to believe in things they don't know, then no. But neither do humans. Everything that a rational human being believes in is something he has seen, heard, touched or has been led to believe exists. Same as any other animal. Humans and all other animals can only believe what they see. Animals may not be able to create, but the major difference between us is that humans have the morphological adaptations to be able to be creative (e.g hands, voices etc). It could be argued that the ability of some primates or elephants to use tools is being creative, but that's up to you. 5) Define a concept of good and evil. if you tell a dog or cat off, it won't do it again. It could be argued that's a concept of good and evil, not too far set apart from humans. Look at kids, the only way they can understand what is good and bad is by telling them, rewarding them for doing good, punishing them for doing bad. Just like pets. Don't forget that most animals don't have the same need to differentiate between good and evil as humans. If we do something nice, we don't have to worry about being killed as a result: most aniimals do. 6) I really don't think there is enough of a difference between humans and other animals to justify us being set apart from them. 7) If you were writing the Bible, especially in a less enlightened time, would you say that we are on the same level as other animals? Or would you say that we are better than them, and that we are their masters. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you must realise that The Bible is not His true word, it is the word of sycophantic believers. 8) And there lies the problem. If you believe The Bible, then you believe that humans are set apart from other animals, that we are special, that we are God's chosen ones. It's like nationalism for the human race. If any other group believed that over another, it would be prejudice. The fact is that we are not inherently different from other animals. We're the same as them, just way better on many levels.