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.
All species are transitional. We aren't static. Genetic mutations are happening all the time, and some of those genetic mutations will become fixed, part of our genetic make-up.
This idea that you have that mutations only take away is completely wrong. Mutations can be positive, negative or neutral. For instance, my father can wiggle his ears. That's a genetic mutation. It's not negative, and it's not positive. It's neutral.
Maybe God has a hand in natural selection. Maybe God has a hand in mutations. Who knows? But the fact that species change over time, in response to environment or other biological pressures, is in evidence by fossils and DNA. We have seen bacteria and viruses mutate and change in labs. That's evolution. Evolution exists. You cite natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution. If it makes you happy to think that God is guiding it all, think that. But don't deny that evolution happens.
And a 50-year-old hat, encrusted with gunk, isn't a fossil.
Species don't change over time. A dog is still a dog. A cat is still a cat. One kind does not change to another kind. There has been no evidence to support that it has ever happened. No one has witnessed it happening, nor is there anything left behind (fossils) to support that it has happened. Thus, why do you act as though it has happened without any evidence?
Mutations can be beneficial, but the mutations, in and of themselves, do not add new genetic material. They simply modify existing genetic material, and, in many instances, result in a loss of genetic material. In fact, most mutations are harmful or do not effect the organism. Harmful mutations do not get carried on, but instead get selected against and die out. Very few mutations are beneficial, and even when they are, they don't change the DNA code for the type of organism. It's still going to be what it has always been.
Bacteria have changed in labs, but they are still bacteria. A virus is still a virus. This alone ought to have anyone disbelieving that evolution could occur, if even the smallest, simplest lifeforms, such as one-celled bacteria, are still bacteria, who could believe that organisms with trillions of cells could evolve.
Natural selection doesn't guide evolution. It simply selects the genes already contained within the gene pool to continue on. If the traits are not set to the correct environmental conditions, it will be selected against. This isn't evolution. For example, if dogs had both long and short hair, and the environment became cold, or if dogs moved into a cold area, the short-haired dogs could freeze to death and no longer exist, whereas the long-haired dogs carry their genes on. This isn't evolution, but rather a selection of the genes that already exist. The DOG IS STILL A DOG.
The hat is fossilized. It's not encrusted with "junk", but the same minerals that generally defines a fossil. It seems that when evolutionists are proven wrong, they change the definitions, or use arguments to explain away what doesn't fit their beliefs.
Species don't change over time. A dog is still a dog. A cat is still a cat. One kind does not change to another kind. There has been no evidence to support that it has ever happened. No one has witnessed it happening, nor is there anything left behind (fossils) to support that it has happened. Thus, why do you act as though it has happened without any evidence?
Mutations can be beneficial, but the mutations, in and of themselves, do not add new genetic material. They simply modify existing genetic material, and, in many instances, result in a loss of genetic material. In fact, most mutations are harmful or do not effect the organism. Harmful mutations do not get carried on, but instead get selected against and die out. Very few mutations are beneficial, and even when they are, they don't change the DNA code for the type of organism. It's still going to be what it has always been.
Bacteria have changed in labs, but they are still bacteria. A virus is still a virus. This alone ought to have anyone disbelieving that evolution could occur, if even the smallest, simplest lifeforms, such as one-celled bacteria, are still bacteria, who could believe that organisms with trillions of cells could evolve.
Natural selection doesn't guide evolution. It simply selects the genes already contained within the gene pool to continue on. If the traits are not set to the correct environmental conditions, it will be selected against. This isn't evolution. For example, if dogs had both long and short hair, and the environment became cold, or if dogs moved into a cold area, the short-haired dogs could freeze to death and no longer exist, whereas the long-haired dogs carry their genes on. This isn't evolution, but rather a selection of the genes that already exist. The DOG IS STILL A DOG.
The hat is fossilized. It's not encrusted with "junk", but the same minerals that generally defines a fossil. It seems that when evolutionists are proven wrong, they change the definitions, or use arguments to explain away what doesn't fit their beliefs.
Actually, no. They're not. It does not matter how life originated. It could have spontaneously sprung from a primordial soup, been seeded by aliens from the Pleiades, or been created by one God or many.
Regardless of how the first living thing came to be, all subsequent living things on earth have are evolved from one or a very few original ancestors through a Darwinian process of descent with modification.
Without any evidence to back this up, you're very bold in your beliefs.
"Evolution" is unproven and therefore it remains a theory, and a ridiculous one at that! It shouldn't be taught as fact. It should have scant mention, and should be presented only as a theory.
It has become a tool of the left which is used to ridicule and discredit Christianity and Judaism for the single purpose of promoting atheism.
Let me guess this straight, you are claiming animals have complex language, but oh, we just don't understand it?? Then how can you really say it is a language and not just instinctive grunts, groans, and noises? Human beings are still the ONLY species to develop a structured language adhering to syntax rules.
So what. Proves or disproves nothing relevant to the question/issue at hand. It is obvious that of all the animals on earth, man is the most developed. So what?
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.
