Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'

[Baird]

We still have 2 pointy teeth from the top and bottom parts of our jaw where we used to rip apart flash with. In time, our brains grew and we started using tools instead of our teeth to rip up flesh and so the teeth that was used for flesh tearing started decreasing in size, eventually it should dis-appear altogether. Tails no longer needed as we started walking on 2 feet.

Apes, chimps, etc. use tools. How do teeth know how they are used and how they should evolve?

How does water know it should boil at a temperature of 100° celcius?
How does paper know it should burn when it touches flames?
How does metal know it should bend under a great amount of pressure?
Think for a second.

Here are some more evidence of evolution. The ones on the top are the oldest and the ones on the bottom are recent.

Notice here that what we actually have is older animal skulls and then more recent human skulls. That isn't evidence of evolution, that is evidence of desperation.

---

Well, evolution takes mostly a few years, this kind of evolution just took more than just a few years...How can you know something evolved if you don't know what it looked like in the beginning and what it looks like now?

Funny how we have a tail like countless other animals. We look no differant than the others.

We look no different than the others? Then why do we evolve into something other than the others?

---

*gasp*
HE SAID THE WORD!

[lukec]

I've gotta say, Daystar, that your comments show you do not understand the basic concepts of evolution, and I agree with ace that you need to do something to get a better grasp of the idea.

Two questions. Which skulls are apes and which ones are men, and how do their shape, location and age give us evidence of evolution?

There is no distinction between ape and man- we are a species of ape. Those skulls are ape (and unless I'm very much mistaken, all hominid), and throughout time, their GRADUAL change in shape over time (given by relative ages) show a progression among hominid apes from smaller brain-case to larger, as well as less developped jaws.

How do we know that the changes of the skull shape is to accommodate the growth of a human brain and not just the shape of a human scull? Point out to me where the jaw muscles are reduced. How accurate is the millions of years estimation. What is it based upon?

The dating here is probably not based on carbon dating, but rather on the ages of rocks found accompanying the fossils. How do we know that the change accomodated the growth of a human brain? Well, Daystar, this may surprise you, but humans are not everywhere in the fossil record. Before Homo sapiens there were various other hominids which had smaller brain-cases (mostly- neandertal had more for example) but these othe Homo species are now extinct. We are an extant species, only one more link in the chain. Jaw muscle reduction is evidenced by the sites of muscle attachment to the bone, which in more recent species are smaller since the muscle is smaller.

Apes, chimps, etc. use tools. How do teeth know how they are used and how they should evolve?

Teeth do not "know" anything. The reason our back molars (for example, our appendix or baby toe could equally well be used) are becoming more and more vestigial is that there is no longer a selection pressure for organisms with big, powerful jaws, able to crush tough foods. So they are "unneeded" but left over from our ancestors, who evidentally would survive better with the ability to eat more food.

I don't see anything remarkable about the various sizes of skulls of what appear to be non human primate skulls? Where am I wrong, other than the obvious fact that I don't see what isn't there?

---

You are wrong in thinking they are non-human. The genus homo has been around for a lot longer than sapiens has, and those are similar to our ancestral species.

You show Human, Chimpanzee, Orangutan and Macaque skulls with various sizes and that is supposed to demonstrate evolution? If you really, really believe - it will be true? Maybe that is my problem.

I think he showed you those to give evidence only of the similarity between species descended from a common ancestor.

[Daystar]

Have you read those books or are you just trying to indoctrinate me?

What part of I'm not an expert doesn't make sense to you?

Now If you want to understand evolution read any one of those books that I listed. In other words I'm saying I'm the wrong person to debate with in evolution. I only know bits but at lest I understand it.

So, let me say it again, if you want to understand evolution, read the books which were writen by those who know about it best. Understand now?

So you haven't read the books you have told me to read. You are no 'expert' on evolution but you believe in it. I should read the books because I don't believe in it. I am probably an uneducated idiot because I have carefully studied the Bible, as well, no?

Anyway ...

I know Charles Darwin is online. Most of those others are not, are they?

[leo-rcc]

Richard Dawkins his books are here:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/dawkins_w...index.html the blind watchmaker.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/mount/index.html Climbing mount improbable.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/index_3en.html The Selfish Gene.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/phenotype/index.html The extended Phenotype.

I'm leaving out the god delusion since it only briefly looks at the theory of evolution through natural selection as opposed to these that are specific on that topic.

[Daystar]

Richard Dawkins his books are here:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/dawkins_w...index.html the blind watchmaker.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/mount/index.html Climbing mount improbable.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/index_3en.html The Selfish Gene.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/phenotype/index.html The extended Phenotype.

I'm leaving out the god delusion since it only briefly looks at the theory of evolution through natural selection as opposed to these that are specific on that topic.

I am having surgery tomorrow and may not be able to post for about a week, but I am going to look at these and read at least one of them. If there is one that you would recommend over the others let me know.

I will give a sort of book report as well.

[Edwardo Piet]

How are we born atheist?

Because a baby doesn't believe in "God" when its born. It develops that after. Whether it has or quickly develops superstitious thinking I don't know
I know that even pigeons can be superstitious!
But baby's don't believe in "God" when they're born.

[lukec]

Watchmaker and Selfish Gene are both really good, pick one of those two. I think Watchmaker has more lucid examples.

[Baird]

Richard Dawkins his books are here:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/dawkins_w...index.html the blind watchmaker.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/mount/index.html Climbing mount improbable.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/index_3en.html The Selfish Gene.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/phenotype/index.html The extended Phenotype.

I'm leaving out the god delusion since it only briefly looks at the theory of evolution through natural selection as opposed to these that are specific on that topic.

Nice links!
Do you have the link to The God Delusion too? I'd love to read it again.

[bozo]

[quote='leo-rcc' pid='5754' dateline='1228938319']
Richard Dawkins his books are here:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/dawkins_w...index.html the blind watchmaker.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/mount/index.html Climbing mount improbable.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/index_3en.html The Selfish Gene.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/phenotype/index.html The extended Phenotype.

I'm leaving out the god delusion since it only briefly looks at the theory of evolution through natural selection as opposed to these that are specific on that topic.

I am having surgery tomorrow and may not be able to post for about a week, but I am going to look at these and read at least one of them. If there is one that you would recommend over the others let me know.

I will give
Want me to pray for you?

[leo-rcc]

Richard Dawkins his books are here:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/dawkins_w...index.html the blind watchmaker.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/mount/index.html Climbing mount improbable.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/gene/index_3en.html The Selfish Gene.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/phenotype/index.html The extended Phenotype.

I'm leaving out the god delusion since it only briefly looks at the theory of evolution through natural selection as opposed to these that are specific on that topic.

Nice links!
Do you have the link to The God Delusion too? I'd love to read it again.

Sure do.

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/delusion.htm