If you want proof of the Theory of Evolution, all you have to do is look around. Man has used the same process of evolution that nature does to produce purebred dogs, beef cattle, domestic turkeys, and other livestock. Man in these cases has done the selecting not nature, not natural selection, but it is the same exact process and is only one of many proofs that the Theory of Evolution is correct. The Theory of Evolution has been so proven that NO scientist would dispute it, and I'm willing to say that anyone that does dispute it is a religious nut.

You guys started this; I didn't.

I would suggest you drop it or take it somewhere else. I would hate to see Yoda's thread closed because of this.

Sorry guys, a hot-under-the-collar debate was not the intention.

Look...there are 'normal' people out there that will say/think we ARE nuts wanting castration, penectomies, sex changes, being gay or lesbian etc. But, this is OUR view of life and we would like doctors and other people to respect our feelings and allow us to modify our bodies as we want. People differ in views and opinions. One will agree with me, the other don't. We might not agree with each other about things, but we must respect the journey.

Therefor, comes to religion, evolution, politics, sex etc. we should not fight with each other (like the doctors do to us because of THEIR viewpoint), but except each others opinion, even if one does not agree.

Life is so amazing that we ALL might be wrong. Evolutionist argue among each other; there are disagreement among Christians, Muslims, Jews etc; their are arguments in politics (hence the existence of political parties) and so on. WE DIFFER. It's only the animals whose behavioral patterns are largely alike eg. dogs do what dogs do; snakes do what snakes do and so on. Think about it, humans and animals both have primitive territorial traits and battles, but humans are the only creatures on earth that philosophize, search for God, the ability to create, construct complex harmonies and phrases in music, the arts, searching our roots like in evolution, etc. We are NOTHING like the animals. What animal cares where it comes from or worry about a god? We are special...we ARE the express image of God made in HIS likeness. It's a pity people fails to see this.

SO...let begin to accept one another's view points. Who knows, maybe there is some truth in it.

Myself, being a man of God, sees EVERYTHING made by the hand of God, just as Hash says. Please allow me my faith.

Slammr sees creatures that came forth from the oceans. Although I disagree, I do respect that view point. I AM willing to wait for scientist to REALLY prove that, to alter my faith.

So...back to nuts, pee-pees, hormones and tee-tees...shall we! (as I'm so diligently reminded by my superiors on this archive)

P.S on a lighter note. Hash wishes for a bigger penis by evolution. I wouldn't mind evolution giving us wings with our existing limbs. Airlines will surely go out of business. I wonder what evolution's gift is going to be for humans in a few million years?

Sorry for bringing it up, but evolution is NOT proven, that's another lie of the evolutionists. Complexity has nothing to do with breeding animals, that's not evoultion, that's artificial selection, you can look it up. O.K. I'll shut up now, since I'm such an idiot.

Hash (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 11:41 am I'll shut up now, since I'm such an idiot.

I have to agree with your self-analysis on this one topic, Hash.

YodaNell (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 11:07 am Sorry guys, a hot-under-the-collar debate was not the intention.

.................

YodaNell (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 11:07 am Slammr sees creatures that came forth from the oceans. Although I disagree, I do respect that view point. I AM willing to wait for scientist to REALLY prove that, to alter my faith.

So...back to nuts, pee-pees, hormones and tee-tees...shall we! (as I'm so diligently reminded by my superiors on this archive)

P.S on a lighter note. Hash wishes for a bigger penis by evolution. I wouldn't mind evolution giving us wings with our existing limbs. Airlines will surely go out of business. I wonder what evolution's gift is going to be for humans in a few million years?

I like to think that creationism and evolution are compatible. However, I would like to be nullo like YodaNell since I can't hope for total srs. What good is a penis if you sit to pee and do not have penetrative sex?

Hash (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 4:09 am Think about the evolutionary theory, man, animals evolve, changing as needed or as wanting in order to adapt to their environment, but what drives or pushes for these changes?

Random chance. The very essence of Darwinism is that huge periods of time and random chance combined with selective pressures result in changes. Darwinism depends on pre-adaptation, that a change has already occurred before it is needed. The idea that an organism wants or wills the change is exactly what Darwinian evolution is NOT.

Hash (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 4:09 am Can a lower life form think and reason that they need to evolve into a more complex life form and then by sheer will evolve? What's the motivator for evolving?

Evolutionary pressure. Some peppered moths were melanistic (very black) some were not and just white sprinkled with black. In preindustrial times, the black ones stood out on lichen covered trees and birds ate more of them so they had a hard time reproducing (because they were dead). With the Industrial Revolution the trees got covered with soot, the white moths now stood out and got eaten (and taken out of the reproductive cycle) and the black moths were cleverly camoflaged to look like sooty bark. For the last thrity years, air pollution laws have put an end to industrial pollution (at least in the form of soot) and now the trees are no longer covered with soot, now the white peppered moths are making a comeback. The species has both whitish and melanistic varieties, which of the two reproduces more depends on which avoids being eaten which depends on random events beyond the moth's control. The same thing occurs with dandelions. There are tall varieties and ground hugging forms. In manicured lawns, the tall forms are cut down before they reproduce and so in parks and suburban landscapes, that form prevails; in wilderness areas, the tall forms prevail because they are not cut down and being tall they can scatter their seeds more effectively than their ground-hugging cousins. The two varieties have to already be there before evolution can select one or the other.

Hash (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 4:09 am If we say man has evolved, then why haven't we, why can't we change our sex at will?

Because it is not about personal will but about what we have to start with. If you don't have the ability to change sex, then you can't select for it. That is why, despite years of trying, there are no true blue roses. The blue flower pigments, cyanins, aren't manufactured in any rose, so you can't select for it. You can select unpigmented roses and come up with white varieties, you can select varieties with xanthins and produce pale to dark yellow roses, and red roses from pale pink to deep almost black red or mix the two and produce salmon or orangey-pinks, but you can't breed blue roses because short of genetic engineering, there are no blue cards to play. Darwinian evolution only works with the cards it is dealt; new, playable cards are extremely rare.

Hash (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 4:09 am What's always been difficult about evolution is the simplistic decision that an animal can by sheer will over hundreds of thousands of years, change it's design.

The simplistic element is your misunderstanding, but that isn't evolution. Darwinian evolution removes any form of "decision" from the process. Traits appear by random chance and are selected for by impersonal survival pressures once those traits appear in the gene pool. Evolution is the biological equivalent of Brownian motion; what you are ranting about is a teleological construct, generally referred to as Lamarckianism, which is the biological equivalent of faith healing; and you are right; it is a crock. It is also a straw man.

Mac (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 5:12 pm I like to think that creationism and evolution are compatible. However, I would like to be nullo like YodaNell since I can't hope for total srs. What good is a penis if you sit to pee and do not have penetrative sex?

Hi Mac, nice to hear from YOU again.

I would have liked it if evolution gave us penises that drop off (just like that little lizard) at 40 years of age, giving us time in our youth to procreate if so wanted. I mean, what's the use of a penis later in life except to jerk off, lust, defile one's body and urinate.

It's also a titty that evolution does not let us evolve another type of hormone that counters the side effects caused by the lack of testosterone. That, after all, is the essence of evolution; to improve a specie's weakness. The reality, though, is the human bodies seem to regress in it's development. Humans are becoming smaller, weaker and more prone to serious diseases.

Mac, I can't wait for the day you report that you became a nullo. It seem to be a great desire for you. I must honestly say that, though not female in psyche, I REALLY don't miss my penis at all! I really like the way I am and the look down there. My soul is at rest...finally.

Blessings to you

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Tue May 31, 2011 11:26 pm Some peppered moths were melanistic (very black) some were not and just white sprinkled with black... The same thing occurs with dandelions... despite years of trying, there are no true blue roses... The blue flower pigments, cyanins, aren't manufactured in any rose..

Hi gareth19, it seems to me that you are an expert in evolution dogma. Though we are really getting of my topic here I really (as a leak on the topic of evolution) like to comment regarding you writing.

It seems to me that in ALL the examples you mentioned, only MINOR adaption took place. The moths, roses even dog varieties did not change into another specie or animal type, but rather adapted their own sort to improve themselves. It remains unproven that a rose will evolve into a tulip. The moth did not evolve into, say, a lovebird or a bat.

You say that creatures cannot change if they do not have the 'stuff' IN them that will cause the change. My point, exactly. The moth does not have the blueprint of a bat in it's genes to enable it to evolve into one. Do you agree?

Therefor, my faith can accept that a type/kind/specie CAN adapt in it's environment eg. a fresh water crock adapted into a salt water crock but it remained a crock non the less. Though I'm not familiar regarding the mechanics of adaptation and evolution in species, one can observe and reason the truth in what I say. I, for one, have NEVER seen or heard any hard evidence where:

1) Plants and Animals have a common ancestry, as mentioned in Darwin's book;

2) Humans evolved from a single celled organism through many different stages of animal varieties;

3) All matter which came into existence BY ITSELF and FROM NOTHING and lastly;

4) That evolution is still in progress.

...aren't manufactured in any rose...

It's only logic to assume that even the very first creature on earth had 'stuff' manufactured in it. Either that creature and it's stuff materialized from NOTHING into being or GOD manufactured that 'stuff'.

Can you now understand why there are people who honestly cannot understand/accept many of the evolution theories. We are not stupid. It just does not make sense (in light of the above) to accept those theories by blind unproven faith.

This is an interesting subject. Maybe someone could start a new thread to continue it. My post is really evolving up the wrong branch of the tree.

Blessings to all.

The discussion of Evolution has been moved:

Hash (imported) wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:59 am http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=

20652. I would ask that everyone go there to discuss it rather than divert Yoda's thread from it's intended purpose.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

I agree that the horse-race of a discussion, replaying the Scopes Monkey Trial in this thread, is fun. It is, however, a digression.

YodaNell posted a fascinating response in this thread, about being a straight castrate who's finding some unexpected (but not unwelcome) headspace changes and is sharing them.

I would like to hear more on that discussion.

(The horse race can wait; we've heard it before.)