Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mankind five hundred years ago had inadequate nutrition compared to today, even in our era of junk food, which is filled with horrible stuff.
You can see the affects of malnutrition in Africa today. It results in individuals being significantly shorter than they would have been given adequate nutrition during formative years.
Yes, man is changing, i.e. evolving, in response to a change in enviroonment, i.e. more and better food.
The problem with your suggestion is we do know how the world works and how species differentiate and change into new species over time in response to changing environmental conditions. Not teaching this just leaves the children ignorant and subject to mythical religious nonsense.
Speciation is not evolution. It is simply animals within a particular KIND branching off selectively from a prior organism. However, all traits were within the original created KIND. This is simply species changing from within, USING THE SAME GENES THAT EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING. A bird is still a bird.
Even if one argues that the Galapagos finches is existence of evolution, it is nothing more than speciation using natural selection according to survivability to the various environmental conditions in different locations. The bird is still a bird. The genes were in the original bird kind that later likely branched off to form some type of finch, which further branched off.
NOT EVOLUTION...You're not going from one KIND of organism to another KIND of organism. You're not adding any new genes. No evolution taking place.
Has it ALWAYS been a bird?
How is it that some small group of people has decided that the only way evolution can be true if if one species changes into some other species?
I asked this earlier and did not get a reply.
What examples do you believe were ever posited that suggested that the definition of evolution is an older species becoming a new species?
You could not be more wrong. The late Bob Schadewald was a personal friend of mine, and bar none the world's leading expert on the flat-earth movement before his death. I used to help his research because I lived for some years near Zion, Illinois... home of the movement for most of the 20th century.
It was his educated opinion that Flat-Earthism, Geocentrism and Creationism were respectively the conservative, moderate and liberal branches of the Bible-Science tree.
Here is one of his most accessible articles. It was actually published in the Bulletin of the Christian Geocentrist group the Tychonian Society.
Speciation is not evolution. It is simply animals within a particular KIND branching off selectively from a prior organism. However, all traits were within the original created KIND. This is simply species changing from within, USING THE SAME GENES THAT EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING. A bird is still a bird.
You should be arguing with your fellow creationist Harrier on that issue. You seem to be on two different pages.
Did you answer my question yet? Do you consider humans and chimpanzees to be two different kinds?
Flu vaccine is evidence of microevolution which no one seriously challenges as occurring.
That is not evidence of macroevolution.
Flu vaccine is evidence of evolution. EVOLUTION.
You're only arguing about macroevolution because you know that that takes many lifetimes, so you feel you can safely ignore the fossils and DNA that are evidence of macroevolution. It's a hollow argument that depends on you ignoring evidence, denying the evidence. And it's hollow because you assert there is evidence of gravity, but deny the evidence of evolution. The human today is different from the human 1000 years ago. An apple falls on someone's head. Both observable, demonstrable phenomena. For the one, you demand minute detail on how and why. For gravity, you don't demand any detail on how and why. And yet, science actually understands the how and why of evolution much better than the how and why of gravity. We don't know why matter is attracted to matter, we don't know how the force exerts itself.
See? This is exactly the creationist theory of taxonomy I was talking about. How much evolution and speciation does it require to be true?
It requires more evolution (within the "horse kind") to get from a horse to zebra than it does to get from a human to a chimpanzee.
Further more, lets consider the claim that all the genetic material for every modern species of dog could be contained in the seven pair of clean animals, or single pair of unclean animals carried on the ark. I'm not really sure if dogs were clean or unclean. So, hell... let's make it easy and just consider Noah and his family.
There were eight human beings on the Ark. Noah, his sons Ham, Sem and Japeth and their respective wives. That would limit us to a total number of 16 different possible alleles of each gene.
Genes exist today that have hundreds or thousands of alleles. And all of these would have had to evolve in the mere 4300 to 4500 years since the flood was supposed to have occurred. In fact, it would have had to happen in far less time than that since we have records going back most of those years that do not reveal any such furious evolution going on.
Your story requires far more evolution to have occurred in a shorter amount of time than any real scientists would even begin to consider. You are in fact a hyper-evolutionist.
And the idea is stupid.
You base the above on the assumption that evolution exists.
If it is settled, then why are we currently debating it?
Because there are a few luddite dogmatists who just can't bear the truth. Can't accept that their dogma not 100% true. They must accept the unacceptable, and deny the undenyable in order to keep their pie-in-the-sky dream life immortality in one form or another alive.
You're assuming that mankind and horses, etc. were not some type of very mixed hybrid, genetically speaking. If every gene for mankind and animals is found within the DNA of the original kinds and Noah's family, then it doesn't matter, for everything can come into existence.
No. I am making no such assumption whatsoever.
There are only two allelles for any gene in any individual animal. On the ark, there can only (at the most) have been 14 different alleles for the clean "kinds," four different alleles for the unclean kinds, and 16 for humans.
It is genetically impossible to include all the different alleles in a single breed of dog into the single pair that would have been carried in the ark, let alone all dogs, wild dogs, wolves, foxes and jackals.
Your theory can only be compelling to people who did not know the first thing about genetics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
