<p>
</p>
<p>For quite a long time I believe.</p>
<p>My invitations to change the subject have fallen on deaf ears.</p>
<p>^They’re not open to accepting change of that sort here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? Only creatures that are evolving can fossilize?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AIDS is a disease that has existed in primates forever as far as we know. It is thought to have passed from chimpanzees to humans when two varieties cross-bred and a hunter got the chimp’s blood on himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such as?</p>
<p>Science is great for knowledge and regardless of their being a God or not religion is great for humane morals.</p>
<p>So I ask myself “Would I rather be a moral person that is completely idiotic or an intelligent person that would torture a person to death for blinking in front of me?” You may consider this extreme but this was not that extreme before the bible came. The bible was an essential centerpiece in creating civilization as we know it. I will pick religion over science and although science is important, it is more important to be a good person then to be a smart person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My friend, read the thread before you post. You’re embarrassing yourself.</p>
<p>
Show me your tree please? I’d like to see it. And what do you mean? All of them are transitions, as they don’t exist today. The fossils there are a ladder, not parallel evolutions. The tree would include the evolution of chimpanzees and company. </p>
<p>
So basically, your cleanerfish is “self-developed” but also seen here: [The</a> Cleaner Fish](<a href=“http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm]The”>http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm).</p>
<p>Your organ structures + spider web argument is seen here: <a href=“http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_76-82.pdf[/url]”>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_76-82.pdf</a> </p>
<p>And you’d have me believe, as the rational skeptic I am, that you came up with these on your own? I mean organ formation? Ok, maybe you’d think of that… spiderweb? maybe… cleanerfish eating from sharks? Ok give me a break…</p>
<p>
Don’t propagate this lie. It’s existence is finite, and only centuries old according to most scientific evaluations. Primates are only several million years old, so AIDs must’ve emerged after that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think both the religious and the nonreligious would be offended by this.</p>
<p>Have you read The Origin of the Species, TQM? It is a very reasonable work. I have not read Darwin’s later writings, but in Origin he presents a very reasonable theory, including groundbreaking work on Natural Selection. Unfortunately, when Darwin wrote, the means by which species vary were not known. Mendelian Genetics have shown that variation beyond what already exists in the genome does not happen, except in the case of freak mutations. Also, there had not been nearly the amount of research done in paleontology and biology.</p>
<p>Darwin very carefully admitted the problems with his theory. Many modern Evolutionists do the same. A fair amount of professors and online debaters do not, unfortunately.</p>
<p>
Oh contraire my friend! It is more important to be a blue person than a red person!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire, mon fr</p>
<p>The question was which is better for society. Both are necessary and both are important but which is more so important then the other? I choose religion for my own reasons.</p>
<p>I am not trying to add to your conversation otherwise I would have specifically added to it. I was just attempting to answer the original question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Believe what you want to believe, it’s true. It’s not like it’s especially amazing or hard. I look at a creature and think “what series of stages could lead to this?” and then find the neccesary chance to be beyond my threshold of doubt.</p>
<p>To be strictly honest, I have read Creation books which cite the cleanerfish as one of the wonders of Creation. But the prisoners dillema nature and the neccesary chain of coincidences to produce it I thought up myself. The books tended to focus on how amazingly perfect the relationship is, which is one of the reasons I don’t always find them convincing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh - all right. But this still doesn’t excuse some of the statements you’ve made, many of which could have been corrected by *reading the thread<a href=“or%20at%20least%20a%20few%20pages”>/I</a>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do we know this? We didn’t even know it existed until about 50 years ago, so how can we act like we know when it originated?</p>
<p>And obviously, IF primates evolved then HIV evolved after them. But it’s that IF that we are debating.</p>
<p>My apologies. You guys are at 81 pages and I just wanted to answer the original question. If what I said offended any of you then I apologize as well. I didn’t mean for it to sound offensive to anybody. All I was stating is that, to me, it is more important to be a good person then a smart person. Never said you couldn’t be both. Just that if I were to pick one and could only be one I would pick being a good person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, sorry, I haven’t really thought about the French language in over a year haha.</p>
<p>
I have not read the book and would not doubt that it is an exceptional piece of 19th century scientific literature. However, if you have serious interest in expanding your knowledge in biology, Campbell Biology is absolutely the best resource for an introduction course. </p>
<p>
We don’t know exactly when. Primates who originally carried the disease and humans have lived in relative proximity for much longer. While it is possible that the virus is extremely old and that zoonosis is only a recent occurrence, it’s more likely that the virus has existed for a shorter period of time and zoonosis occurred shortly thereafter. After all, nothing was preventing its propagation before. </p>
<p>This is far beyond the purpose of the debate however.</p>
<p>The problem I have with you is that you don’t just poke holes in evolution - you must have your own alternate hypothesis, one that to you, provides a better explanation. Otherwise you don’t understand what the true nature of scientific endeavor is. Since you haven’t really backed an alternate explanation with sufficient evidence, I remind you that science is about picking the best theories, not the perfect ones. I’m almost completely certain that you use two different standards to judge whatever theories you have, when in reality, an objective standard should be used.</p>
<p>
Let me phrase it differently. Without evolution, we would not find fossils unique to a time period. Some of it may be due to extinction, at least regarding disappearances of species, but some of it is because an organism will evolve into one species and then into another. Without the change that evolution brings, we would not see some of the classic fossils, like triceratops, which did not exist, then did exist because something evolved into it, then didn’t exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AIDS is also constantly evolving and mutating. The reason why it has existed for so long is because of evolution. If it wasn’t constantly evolving, organisms would have built an immunity to it and it would be extinct.</p>
<p>
People with blue eyes. The blue eye phenotype is a mutation unique to Europeans. It can be considered “evolution” because it is selected for because of how it makes some people very attractive to others.</p>
<p>[Here</a> is the tree](<a href=“http://img692.imageshack.us/f/humanevolution.png/]Here”>ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs)</p>
![http://img692.imageshack.us/f/humanevolution.png/]Here](http://img692.imageshack.us/f/humanevolution.png/%5DHere){kind=link}
<p>Note the non-ladderness.</p>
<p>For comparision, [here</a> is what the tree would look like if all the fossils had stayed where they were originally claimed to belong.](<a href=“http://img401.imageshack.us/f/67168127.jpg/]here”>ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs)</p>
![http://img401.imageshack.us/f/67168127.jpg/]here](http://img401.imageshack.us/f/67168127.jpg/%5Dhere){kind=link}
