Why people shed tears of empathy: Evolution

Bwahahahahahahahaha… why everything is everything: Evolution.

The Rogue Tomato on November 12, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Recent studies have suggested that pumice floats played an important role in the evolution of life on Earth since these “islands” can drift over long stretches of ocean, ferrying animals, plants and even colonies of microbes across water barriers.

http://www.livescience.com/22268-huge-pumice-island-floats-in-pacific.html

All evo, all the time.

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM

No, everything is magic.

lester on November 12, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Yes for you evos everything is magic–and 12yo girls.

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/11/12/teaparty/america-they-want-it-let-them-own-it/

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

The atheist engineer told me “I would have made humans able to get energy from solar power, which is all around us, instead of having to eat food meals or starve.

This atheist engineer obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. From where would the physical material come out of which our bodies are constructed? Even plants don’t run on solar power alone; they need nutrients from the soil. Photosynthesis is only one part of the equation. And how much surface area would humans require if we were to get all our energy from sunlight? Our resident biologist tells me that the average plant gets just under 14 food calories (14 kcal) per day per square meter of surface area. Plants do not have to move. They do not have to instantaneously interact with their environments. And, importantly, they do not have to think. These processes require tremendous amounts of energy (about 2,000 food calories per day). To get 2,000 food calories per day through photosynthesis, human beings would require a flat surface 36 feet by 36 feet, or the size of a modest home. This doesn’t include the requirements for extra energy to lug around this huge amount of extra mass plus the supporting structure required to hold it aloft!

A surface area of ~1500 square feet would have huge problems with heat management and all this photosynthesis would require a tremendous amount of water for the fixing of carbon and to account for water loss though the stomates that need to be kept open in order for carbon dioxide to get in (i.e., we would need roots). These are only the first considerations. What this person has proposed is nothing short of a total reengineering of what it means to be human. So what he is really saying is, “If I were to create humans, I would not create humans,” which is nonsensical.

http://creation.com/building-better-biology

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:25 PM

http://creation.com/the-design-of-tears-an-example-of-irreducible-complexity

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:29 PM

But wait, there’s more:

Why do people often feel better after crying?

Alan Wolfelt, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Colorado Medical School, works primarily with people who are mourning loved ones. “In my experience,” he says, “I have observed changes in the physical expressions following the expression of tears. Not only do people feel better after crying, they also look better.”

And according to Dr. William Frey, a biochemist and director of the Dry Eye and Tear Research Center in Minneapolis, Minn., one reason people might feel better after crying could be because they are “removing, in their tears, chemicals that build up during emotional stress.” Frey’s research indicates that tears, along with other bodily secretions like perspiration, rid the body of various toxins and wastes.

As far back as 1957, it was known that emotional tears are chemically different from tears that result from eye irritation. Emotional tears contain more beta-endorphins, some of our bodies’ natural pain relievers, and protein.

http://www.cyquest.com/good_cry.html

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

The zenith of evolution:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3ZiN0TIBE_vvOWjiyM6H-sFt20byUtQxsAB3HFHCmhMgeJ_PRmbASGtWi8Q

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

What claims? Claims should have peer reviewed scientific studies behind them. That website has either references to itself or other creationist sources. As I said you can’t reason with magical beliefs. Waste of time.

Also, the same religion that tells you earth is 6000 years old tells you 15 year olds and 12 year olds should have babies for Jesus. It’s clear who’s fantasizing.

lester on November 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Evolutionists are the greatest dancers ever.

You do not refute because you cannot refute. I’m talking about you, Lester. Not your non-peer reviewed buds who quote each other.

But it is you who belittled a 15yo who took responsibility for his actions. You who, without proof, suggested that the boy had sex with a twelve year old girl. An atrocious assumption which reveals the depth of your character.

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The Good Lt. slithers out each time one of these threads show up. He is definitely a comment generator.

I’ll ask again. What makes you “good?’

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 8:02 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo5MdHMNcw

Good Lt on November 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM

High quality straw man video you got there.

Why doesn’t thunderfart offer to debate William Craig. I know why.

He fail to evolve a pair.

Even evo extraordinaire Dawkins won’t debate Craig.

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Stick to attacking the argument and stop trying to attack the person making the argument.

We’re talking about evolution on this thread, you’re trying to talk about your personal faith.

Good Lt on November 12, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I’m talking about how someone who espouses an evolutionary worldview can determine what is “good.”

But you know that. And you know that evolution cannot support an ethic of any kind except what “I” decide is good.

Say. Why don’t you offer to debate William Craig?

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM