A discussion on evolution...

[Fruity Insanity]

Continuing from FFTF...

(I really shouldn't have said anything. *sigh*)

I'm not saying that believing in God is wrong. Maybe I didn't state it like I meant it, but the beliefs of an individual and scientific evidence should not intersect. I don't know what I am when it comes to religion. I'm not one of those people that goes about, saying that theism is one of the worst things to ever plague the human race (those people are assholes, honestly).

I agree. My biology book is all like, "creationism is right evolution is wrong" and then puts all this proof in there.

And as much as I believe that God created Heaven and Earth, I don't think religion should mix with public education - that's the Church's job. (And yes, I really do think that way.) That's also the reason why that book irks me. :P

That does not mean we can't take the Bible as a historical source. That would be like taking the the Epic of Gilgamesh and proclaiming it to be true. (Maybe there was a Gilgamesh, but scorpion-men... Really?) This is not to say that the Bible is useless. It just seems more like a moral code, or a book full of fables with morals and lessons. I have not read the Bible in its entirety, but I once tried reading it cover to cover. As a kid in church apparently I did something disrespectful, and my mom tried to punish me by having me read the bible.

This is why people become all "Christianity's stupid."

Your mom uses reading the Bible as a PUNISHMENT -> That gives you a (somewhat?) negative view of the Bible, a punishment.

...It should be a privilege. (<- IMO, at least.)

And scorpion-men?

... Either that's not in the Bible or I don't remember that.

I started from Genesis, and got somewhere into Noah's Arc when my mom got upset, since apparently I was supposed to be reading the Jesus parts.

That's what I did... I started from Genesis... and read all the way through.

Although... I see why your mom wanted you to read the Jesus parts. They're the bases of Christianity, basically.

Other that that, and a few analyses of the old testament in high school, my bible knowledge is pretty slim.

You analyze the Bible at school? Never knew that.

And my Bible knowledge is pretty broad, even though I haven't read it in one year. :(

Maybe because my dad was a pastor and had a Ph.D. in Theology?

Maybe I was being too tongue-in-cheek before with the whole belching comment.

Maybe~ :)

I have a bit of complaint of what you said in bold. Just because something is old, it does not mean it is credible.

What makes fossils credible is how they can be traced back using carbon dating, to see how old they are. I'm not a master of chemistry, but I trust the whole half-life methodology enough to have an accurate enough result to determine how old something is. Finding ancient Egyptian texts is a completely different kind of credible than scientific evidence for evolution--they would most likely be used to determine the language of the Egyptians and their lifestyles. Science could be used, I suppose, to see how old such texts were, and the materials used to create them.

I don't trust the half-life methodology.

Scientists often twist the info... either that, or assume that what they say is 100% right. They may not be 100% right. Benefit of doubt.

The Bible--a bible you can find in many hotel rooms and churches, is not as credible as you'd think. Perhaps I'm playing semantics here, but perhaps we'd be dealing with something substantial if we found, say, the very first, hand-written copy of the Bible. Then, maybe, we'd be somewhere.

Actually... I think it is as credible as I think.

Like I said, my dad studied this... a lot. (It took him, like, 8 years to get his Ph.D. Well, I understand why, though. He had a family of 6 to feed.) Anyway, he read the Bible in its original form (Hebrew and Greek)... and... yeah.

The Bible is one of the least changed ancient texts. (But with a lot of variants... lots and lots of variants...)

Mostly because the writers of the Bible were Christians. The Book of Revelations explicitly says that should anyone change his Word... by adding or taking away what he said, shall be condemned. That's the reason why it's unchanged... more or less... and the reason (I think) why it has so many variants... so many different interpretations.

So... yeah. It's pretty credible.

The Bible, as a piece of literature, says a lot. It defines the basis for Judeo-Christian faith, and has a lot of value in literary, theological, and anthropological groups. Religion, as you said, pertaining to your beliefs, is, well, reliant on faith.

Reliant on faith, yes.

A lot of things are reliant on faith... Iike the Big Bang.

The universe is expanding, decreasing entropy, and so on and so forth (I love astronomy, too. <3)

That all points to the Big Bang. But can we say that it really happened? Not really.

However, it has no place to be used scientifically. One does not have "faith" that objects fall (under normal gravity) at 9.8 meters per second squared. There is no faith, because if you do not believe it, you can simply execute the experiment and prove it for yourself.

"Proof" is overrated. :P

Remember the time when scientists thought abiogenesis was real?

I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, then.

Then Louis Pasteur came along~

Now, we all now that abiogenesis is wrong... without doubt.

It'll take time. You, as a to-be-biologist, recognize that, too. Time will tell.

You say that it is unfair that most science classrooms do not teach the creationist views. This is not to say that children cannot be exposed to creationism.

Faith and religion are more cultural than scientific, you have to admit. To teach religious views in science class is not relevant. The family--I assume you are Christian because you are raised in such a way, having been nourished in that kind of environment--has the duty to, if they decide to, teach religious values. Schools can, and are encouraged to, study religious texts for their literary and historical value, but should not be touched upon in biology.

I do admit that. Heck, I always tell my mom that "science and religion shouldn't mix." Why? Because that's what I believe. I'm not saying that science is 100% right. I'm just saying religion shouldn't be... too mixed with science.

It would be like writing one side of a chemical reaction and putting "ZEUS" at the end of the yield sign

...Zeus doesn't exist. :P (I get what you mean.)

Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Doga]

I'm going to respond to this is full in a bit, but I read the first response you put, and I am really curious.

What textbook are you using? I assume you're taking the AP Biology exam at some point. Some of it derives questions based on evolution. Does this text teach evolution and dismiss it, or not teach it at all? Based on your previous responses, you seem to know as much about evolution as one should for the exam, but I am curious.

Also, thanks for the topic change. Was a good decision. As said before, will edit in a full response later.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't trust the half-life methodology.

Scientists often twist the info... either that, or assume that what they say is 100% right. They may not be 100% right. Benefit of doubt.

What don't you trust about the half-life methodology? It's accurate within satisfactory degrees, and even if off doesn't add credibility to your argument. That a fossil might be a percent or two off doesn't land it within reasonable bounds of young earth creationism by any stretch of the imagination?

Actually... I think it is as credible as I think.

Like I said, my dad studied this... a lot. (It took him, like, 8 years to get his Ph.D. Well, I understand why, though. He had a family of 6 to feed.) Anyway, he read the Bible in its original form (Hebrew and Greek)... and... yeah.

The Bible is one of the least changed ancient texts. (But with a lot of variants... lots and lots of variants...)

Mostly because the writers of the Bible were Christians. The Book of Revelations explicitly says that should anyone change his Word... by adding or taking away what he said, shall be condemned. That's the reason why it's unchanged... more or less... and the reason (I think) why it has so many variants... so many different interpretations.

So... yeah. It's pretty credible.

What is the King James bible?

"Proof" is overrated. :P

Remember the time when scientists thought abiogenesis was real?

I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, then.

Then Louis Pasteur came along~

Now, we all now that abiogenesis is wrong... without doubt.

It'll take time. You, as a to-be-biologist, recognize that, too. Time will tell.

Right, the mountains of evidence that show the theory of evolution to be most effective are pointless, because some of science which was shaky at best at the time was shown to be false.

I guess we can throw germ theory and atomic theory now.

I guarantee at some point someone is going to ask you to substantiate your views and you're going to link to some nutcase site like answersingenesis. Calling it now.

[uguu]

Actually... I think it is as credible as I think.

Like I said, my dad studied this... a lot. (It took him, like, 8 years to get his Ph.D. Well, I understand why, though. He had a family of 6 to feed.) Anyway, he read the Bible in its original form (Hebrew and Greek)... and... yeah.

The Bible is one of the least changed ancient texts. (But with a lot of variants... lots and lots of variants...)

Mostly because the writers of the Bible were Christians. The Book of Revelations explicitly says that should anyone change his Word... by adding or taking away what he said, shall be condemned. That's the reason why it's unchanged... more or less... and the reason (I think) why it has so many variants... so many different interpretations.

So... yeah. It's pretty credible.

"Proof" is overrated. :P

Remember the time when scientists thought abiogenesis was real?

I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, then.

Then Louis Pasteur came along~

Now, we all now that abiogenesis is wrong... without doubt.

It'll take time. You, as a to-be-biologist, recognize that, too. Time will tell.

By the way, this is actually the best part of science. Science constantly updates itself based on new discoveries and is always as correct as it can be at any given time. The Bible is never updated based on new information and thus is worth as much as a textbook old enough to claim that abiogenesis happens.

[Doga]

I agree. My biology book is all like, "creationism is right evolution is wrong" and then puts all this proof in there.

And as much as I believe that God created Heaven and Earth, I don't think religion should mix with public education - that's the Church's job. (And yes, I really do think that way.) That's also the reason why that book irks me. :P

People pushing religion in general is an annoyance I'd like to see lessened, at least in the susceptible minds of children. At least we agree on this, to some degree.

This is why people become all "Christianity's stupid."

Your mom uses reading the Bible as a PUNISHMENT -> That gives you a (somewhat?) negative view of the Bible, a punishment.

...It should be a privilege. (<- IMO, at least.)

And scorpion-men?

... Either that's not in the Bible or I don't remember that.

My mom used it as a punishment, but I did not grow any resentment to the Bible. I actually enjoyed what I was reading (Genesis), and it only upset me to find out that I was reading the wrong part.

Interestingly enough, when I was a kid, I was in CCD, which was some kind of after-school Catholic-Christian thing. At some point they explained how the universe was made and I asked about evolution. They gave a pretty good answer. Went something like:

"Who's to say that seven of God's days were as long as hours? They could represent the millions of years it took for the universe to be formed."

Could we say that evolution is a mechanism of God? An interesting perspective, but so long as we're not covering our ears and shouting at the sight of scientific evidence...

I might not have been clear--Scorpion-men is a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh. If we are to rely on old texts as fact, then could we not say what happened to Gilgamesh was true, too? Faith is faith, no matter what it is invested in.

You analyze the Bible at school? Never knew that.

And my Bible knowledge is pretty broad, even though I haven't read it in one year. :(

Maybe because my dad was a pastor and had a Ph.D. in Theology?

I did not as much as some of my fellow students, but a lot of my friends looked at the Old Testament in their English class. I myself, looked at the Adam and Eve story and its parallels to the story of Prometheus in relation to Frankenstein. It's a fine piece of literature, and it's one of the most famous books of all time. No need to hate on the thing.

I might read the thing one day. Maybe if the text were a bit bigger.

I don't trust the half-life methodology.

Scientists often twist the info... either that, or assume that what they say is 100% right. They may not be 100% right. Benefit of doubt.

No credible scientist would ever dare say what they do is 100% right without knowing it first. I don't know if you know much about scientific writing, but if you were to look at any scientific journal, you will note that they spend a lot of time covering their experimental procedure. This is because experiment results are only to be taken seriously if the experiment itself can be reliably recreated and re-performed. If data is twisted, then fraud is afoot.

Remember the scientist who fudged some data to say that the flu shot caused autism in children? Yeah, he's lost all credibility and is probably in some kind of facility.

I'm no master chemist, so I cannot tell you how the half-life methodology works, but I have no reason to say it is untrustworthy. It is a generally accepted method of measuring date, and considering so many scientists use it, it has to be mostly truthful. Your superstition about carbon dating is like being sketchy about a scale telling the proper weight.

Actually... I think it is as credible as I think.

Like I said, my dad studied this... a lot. (It took him, like, 8 years to get his Ph.D. Well, I understand why, though. He had a family of 6 to feed.) Anyway, he read the Bible in its original form (Hebrew and Greek)... and... yeah.

The Bible is one of the least changed ancient texts. (But with a lot of variants... lots and lots of variants...)

Mostly because the writers of the Bible were Christians. The Book of Revelations explicitly says that should anyone change his Word... by adding or taking away what he said, shall be condemned. That's the reason why it's unchanged... more or less... and the reason (I think) why it has so many variants... so many different interpretations.

So... yeah. It's pretty credible.

Who's to say that part of Revelations wasn't added right after some guy added in a few parts or changed a bit? This is where it becomes muddy, but if you've ever taken a proper history class, you'd know that everything has bias. Historical documents, articles, etc. all have some sort of bias to them.

Does the Bible have bias? I don't know, but for something as old as it is, it would be insane to think that it did not have a few things changed about over the centuries. Oral tradition and all that. I am unfamiliar with who wrote the first Bible (John?), but I'm sure that even if he tried his best to record the word of God, it got corrupted (if only a bit) at some point. We will never know if the Bible in its current state is what it was intended to be.

The premise and basis are more likely than not the same, but you never know what was taken out and what wasn't, if at all.

Reliant on faith, yes.

A lot of things are reliant on faith... Iike the Big Bang.

The universe is expanding, decreasing entropy, and so on and so forth (I love astronomy, too. <3)

That all points to the Big Bang. But can we say that it really happened? Not really.

I'll admit, I'm no physics buff or astronomy buff, so I suppose it is all up to belief there (at least at my level of understanding). I'll get back to you when I get that PhD in astrophysics I had been meaning to obtain.

"Proof" is overrated. :P

Remember the time when scientists thought abiogenesis was real?

I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, then.

Then Louis Pasteur came along~

Now, we all now that abiogenesis is wrong... without doubt.

It'll take time. You, as a to-be-biologist, recognize that, too. Time will tell.

You want proof for evolution, and now you call it overrated? Stick to your story, buddy.

The beauty of science is that it is constantly changing. It is ever expanding and ever-improving. While it is true that many of the things we accept today to be fact may not be true, it does not mean that they do not have basis in fact. People think of reasons to explain the natural world-- as technology expands, so does our understanding.

The original postulates in atomic theory were wrong... But they did have some kind of right idea. Over time, atomic theory was improved and better-defined.

Even today, atomic theory is simply a theory. Molecular orbital theory is a theory. All of it, theory, but it is credible.

Will our understanding of certain cellular processes and 'junk' DNA be disproved in the future? Time will tell, and more likely than not, a few things will be changed as time goes on.

But one concept, that of evolution, is only going to become more and more clear. Perhaps some ideas we have will be wrong, but I feel the central idea will remain the same, or very similar.

What mechanics cause adaptive radiation?

The answers to these questions, to give you your proof, are what scientists are working on to this very day.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Doga

[Anouleth]

Carbon dating has nothing to do with evolution. Carbon dating is only usable for remains within 60,000 years: if you go back further, it becomes extremely inaccurate. So I don't know why you brought it up.

Evaluating the age of a fossil is actually more art than science, more based on an educated guess of when exactly the fossil was laid down based on where it was dug up, what condition it was in, and what other things can be found near it. It's more geology than chemistry. For example, one key way of dating fossils is by their proximity to index fossils in the same layer. If we know when trilobites existed, and we find a fossil in the same geologic layer as a trilobite fossil, we can extrapolate that they existed in the same era.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Anouleth

[Doga]

Ah, my mistake, then.

[Redwall]

(Not gonna bother quoting stuff from the original post)

Dude, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same. Abiogenesis has not yet been falsified, and many (real, current) scientists still do relevant work on it : http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

And I don't understand what you mean when you say you "don't trust the half-life methodology." The differential equation is pretty simple: dc/dt = -kc, and this holds for nuclear decay processes in general, not just carbon-14.

There is no "proof" in science the way there is in mathematics; whereas we "invented" mathematics and can therefore prove things rigorously, we didn't invent the laws of nature. Either some god figure did it or nature did it; either way, it means that scientists cannot prove scientific claims. On the other hand, we can certainly *disprove* scientific claims, and that is what distinguishes scientific theories: they must be falsifiable in principle.

For this reason, the Big Bang is considered science (since it is, in principle, falsifiable), whereas religious claims, whether or not they are true, cannot be falsified short of dying and meeting our makers, and hence cannot be considered science. The reason the BBT is the prevailing explanation for the start of the universe is that it has not yet been disproven by anything we've thrown at it.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Redwall

[Esau of Isaac]

Carbon dating has nothing to do with evolution. Carbon dating is only usable for remains within 60,000 years: if you go back further, it becomes extremely inaccurate. So I don't know why you brought it up.

Evaluating the age of a fossil is actually more art than science, more based on an educated guess of when exactly the fossil was laid down based on where it was dug up, what condition it was in, and what other things can be found near it. It's more geology than chemistry. For example, one key way of dating fossils is by their proximity to index fossils in the same layer. If we know when trilobites existed, and we find a fossil in the same geologic layer as a trilobite fossil, we can extrapolate that they existed in the same era.

They can date the sediment the fossil is in to evaluate as well, using uranium and argon dating techniques.

[Hawk King]

The Theory of Evolution is a joke. There are so many holes in it. But it's biggest hole is right at the start.

Instead of believing in an omnipotent God who created all of the matter in the universe from nothing; Evolutionists believe in a "Big Bang" that created all of the matter in the universe out of nothing. Seriously? Thats somehow more believable than God? How does nothing spontaneously explode anyway?

[Esau of Isaac]

The Theory of Evolution is a joke. There are so many holes in it. But it's biggest hole is right at the start.

Instead of believing in an omnipotent God who created all of the matter in the universe from nothing; Evolutionists believe in a "Big Bang" that created all of the matter in the universe out of nothing. Seriously? Thats somehow more believable than God? How does nothing spontaneously explode anyway?

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the singularity of space and time, or even the origination of life.

Why is it seemingly every single person that is so adamant about evolution's lack of credibility is just so utterly ignorant of basic science?

[Hawk King]

Explain to me, what "basic science" are you talking about?

[Redwall]

The Theory of Evolution is a joke. There are so many holes in it. But it's biggest hole is right at the start.

Instead of believing in an omnipotent God who created all of the matter in the universe from nothing; Evolutionists believe in a "Big Bang" that created all of the matter in the universe out of nothing. Seriously? Thats somehow more believable than God? How does nothing spontaneously explode anyway?

OK, so share with us some of those holes (real holes that falsify evolution, not wrinkles that are merely left unexplained by our knowledge of evolution being too coarse).

BTW the majority of Christians in the US don't even believe in intelligent design. Neither the Big Bang theory nor the theory of evolution precludes the existence of the Abrahamic God, so I always get confused when I see folks so convinced that scientists are co-conspirators in some sinister plot. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, is a Catholic.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Redwall

[Esau of Isaac]

Explain to me, what "basic science" are you talking about?

Evolutionary biology. Pretty basic.

[peener weener]

Explain to me, what "basic science" are you talking about?

evolutionary biology

basic astronomy

and read up on abiogenesis

[Rehab]

The "Big Bang," IIRC, was actually a name for that the author of the theory came up with to ridicule the idea of the universe coming into existence through an explosion, because that doesn't actually describe how the theory goes and he thought that to suggest it sounded ridiculous, but people latched onto that name a lot more than "everything we see today began as an incredibly tiny, hot, and dense collection of matter and radiation, and expansion and cooling of this unimaginably intense mixture of particles and photons could have led to the present universe of of stars and galaxies, which explains several aspects of today's universe with impressive accuracy." (got out my astronomy textbook The Cosmological Perspective for that) Science does not claim to know the extreme conditions that must have existed in the first 10^-43 second of the history of the universe, called the Planck era (yes, this microscopic period of time was so important we have it its own God Damn Era to itself how badass is that), but what science has done is that it has at least been able extrapolate what followed, in a way that makes more sense than anything else that we've been able to test at that rigorous a level.

Leading us back to religion, I don't really care (that much) about picking at it, but that's IMO because when it's used correctly, religion seeks to describe why life is as it is, while science seeks to describe how life is as it is (see When Science meets Religion, by Ian Barbour, physics and theology professor). Science does not claim to know why that speck of matter was put there, but it does claim it can give the best possible explanation of how that speck of matter became the universe we know today, at least the best as far as the sum of all the testing and theorizing that has led us to our current consolidated theories, and I'll be damned if I let somebody who hasn't at least failed a summer astronomy class like me tell me otherwise. Religion.. okay dude I'm sorry, really, but religion was written by some dude, or some dudes who might've had divine insight a couple thousand years ago and had their message survive based on its strength, or they might have been high as fuck and been able to convince the most people that they had what sounded like the best idea at the time. The problem is that simply looking at their words, we have no proof whatsoever, and in fact as our observations of the universe continue to pile up and grow increasingly complex we actually have less and less proof that it's possible to treat, say, the Bible, as "Shit that Actually Happened," as opposed to "Stories that might change how you approach and think about life."

Edited January 26, 2013 by Rehab

[Anouleth]

The Theory of Evolution is a joke. There are so many holes in it. But it's biggest hole is right at the start.

Instead of believing in an omnipotent God who created all of the matter in the universe from nothing; Evolutionists believe in a "Big Bang" that created all of the matter in the universe out of nothing. Seriously? Thats somehow more believable than God? How does nothing spontaneously explode anyway?

It rather makes sense, if you think about it, when you consider how much more "nothing" there is than "everything". The ratio of "nothing" to "everything", even on our own planet, is extremely skewed in favour of "nothing", even before you consider the vast emptiness of solar space, even before you consider the vaster emptiness of interstellar space, even before you consider the even vasterer emptiness of intergalactic space.

[SgtSmilies]

The Theory of Evolution is a joke. There are so many holes in it. But it's biggest hole is right at the start.

Instead of believing in an omnipotent God who created all of the matter in the universe from nothing; Evolutionists believe in a "Big Bang" that created all of the matter in the universe out of nothing. Seriously? Thats somehow more believable than God? How does nothing spontaneously explode anyway?

The Theory of Evolution is entirely separate from any theory about the origin of the universe. In fact, people who are creationists can still believe in evolution, and those who believe in evolution can disbelieve in the Big Bang.

Try again.

[Hawk King]

The problem with evolution is that anytime a hole has been pointed out they just change what they believe to cover the holes. The Theory of Evolution has drastically changed throughout the last 100 or so years since Darwin 1st thought it up. There have been many hoaxes over the years that have been defuted and the explanation has always been that they just made a mistake.

I dont know enough about current evolutionary beliefs, so im not going to continue discussing it. If anyone has anything to say about creationism, I will be able to join the discussion on that.

[Doga]

The problem with evolution is that anytime a hole has been pointed out they just change what they believe to cover the holes. The Theory of Evolution has drastically changed throughout the last 100 or so years since Darwin 1st thought it up. There have been many hoaxes over the years that have been defuted and the explanation has always been that they just made a mistake.

I dont know enough about current evolutionary beliefs, so im not going to continue discussing it. If anyone has anything to say about creationism, I will be able to join the discussion on that.

Can you give example of such hoaxes? Are you saying that once an idea comes to fruition, it cannot change, and otherwise things are being made up?

It is common knowledge that the theory Darwin thought up was wrong in some regard. He had no knowledge of genetics and their effects on the population. He had little idea on how these heritable traits to increase fitness worked.

As we discovered more aspects of biology, they could be further applied to evolution. Evolution is the string that connects all fields of biology together.

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Here is an insightful article, written, as you may notice decades ago, about how evolution ties so many things in biology.

If you discredit the author, I suggest you do some research on who Dobzhanksy is, and what he has done. Should be credence enough.

[Comet]

It's not that the problems were covered up, the theory was just just improved. We DO have more resources now than Darwin did back then, so the THEORY's information would be more accurate.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The problem with evolution is that anytime a hole has been pointed out they just change what they believe to cover the holes. The Theory of Evolution has drastically changed throughout the last 100 or so years since Darwin 1st thought it up. There have been many hoaxes over the years that have been defuted and the explanation has always been that they just made a mistake.

Yes. This is what scientists do. When something they believe is shown to be wrong, they adopt a new model. There are a lot of things Darwin didn't even know about that we understand quite well now, many of which give even more support for evolution. Evolution remains the overwhelmingly favored theory among scientists to explain biodiversity, and it's the basis for modern biology. Nothing in Biology makes sense without evolution.

[Hawk King]

@ Doga

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are 2 known hoaxes.

That article was interesting although at that time the author apparently believed that human embryos had gill slits. I researched this and human embryos in fact dont have gill slits.

For me to believe in evolution, I would need some huge concrete evidence. There just is none.

@ Anouleth

You make no sense. There is matter everywhere. Even in space, there are atoms of gases, they are just spead out extremely far. Can you grasp the concept of "nothing"? Nowhere in the entire universe can you find "nothing".

[Doga]

True, Hawk King, human fetuses do not have gill slits, but they do have something very similar, pharyngeal pouches:

http://en.wikipedia....ch_(embryology)

Edited January 26, 2013 by Doga

[Anouleth]

You make no sense. There is matter everywhere. Even in space, there are atoms of gases, they are just spead out extremely far. Can you grasp the concept of "nothing"? Nowhere in the entire universe can you find "nothing".

Ah but what's in between that matter? Nothing. Empty vacuum. Even in the atoms of your body, the volume of empty space far exceeds the volume of nuclei. I think it's you that can't grasp the concept of nothing. There is nothing everywhere, even in the hearts of stars, it's just got a little bit of matter in it. Nowhere in the entire universe can you fail to find nothing. And given that there is so much more space that is empty than space that contains anything, doesn't it make more sense that the universe came from nothing than it came from something? After all, if the universe came from something, you would expect there to be more stuff in it.