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.
True,true.The main rebuttal to this seems to be some form of "well,yeah...but...but...it must of all happened AFTER Adam was created".As if both humans and primates all just so happened to develop the very same nonfunctioning gene simultaneously yet completely independently within the last 10,000 years.
The odds would be better on buying just one 10 number lottery ticket in which the winning numbers had to also be in the exact sequence, with your ticket having the numbers 1-10 in order,putting that ticket in the bank as your retirement fund,and cashing it in at 70 to find you had won $ 100 mil.
But as you say,reality is not a big concern with the creationists.
Actually, it is possible for similar species to develop the same gene. Take a look at some of the birds on the islands in the pacific ocean. Many various species of birds, because there are no predators on the island, have lost the ability to fly.
The same question could be asked of believers in evolution. How could animals ect., that were not linked to human evolution at all still have eyes to see, a nose to smell, and ears to hear. How could so many biological systems common in humans, be found in other species that are totally unrelated. Are you telling us, this all happened by the luck of the draw? The fact that we see such a common design, and in such a variety species, suggest that that this did not happen by chance. Yet came about by a common designer.
You show amazing ignorance of the theory you purport to disbelieve.Isn't the first step in deciding not to believe in something actually knowing what it is about?You don't have the knowledge that a properly educated 6th grader would on the subject,and obviously trying to explain it to you would be a waste of time,otherwise you would not be asking such a silly question with all the data that is available for you to read on the subject.
You are hereby dismissed as a serious poster who attempts to post from at least a little knowledge on the subject.
Actually, it is possible for similar species to develop the same gene. Take a look at some of the birds on the islands in the pacific ocean. Many various species of birds, because there are no predators on the island, have lost the ability to fly.
Seriously?This is what is offered?Do the people who oppose evolution even bother to try and understand it first?A quick lesson in the hope that you might choose to proceed and gain a little knowledge.Flight is a very energy consuming means of getting around,and all nature is about energy conservation because expending more energy means having to consume more food that is not always available.So when birds find themselves on islands without predators and an ample supply of food that doesn't require flight,they lose the ability to fly as a result of not using their wings to fly.This is not a negative mutation,it is a positive one because it conserves energy,meaning the need for less food.And it is environmentally driven.No predators,easy food= no need to fly.The chimp mutation is a negative mutation that doesn't appear as the result of any environmental pressures,but rather because the gene "broke".So how did the apes,including chimps,who live in slightly different environments (man does not live in trees and forage tree leaves,for instance) get the same broken gene as man?
Besides which,all birds are ...well...birds.Humans are not thought to be part of the primate family by creationists,yet you have merely linked similar development due to identical environmental pressures within one group of animals,the birds.
Last edited by lifertexan; 04-19-2011 at 12:02 PM..
Seriously?This is what is offered?Do the people who oppose evolution even bother to try and understand it first?A quick lesson in the hope that you might choose to proceed and gain a little knowledge.Flight is a very energy consuming means of getting around,and all nature is about energy conservation because expending more energy means having to consume more food that is not always available.So when birds find themselves on islands without predators and an ample supply of food that doesn't require flight,they lose the ability to fly as a result of not using their wings to fly.This is not a negative mutation,it is a positive one because it conserves energy,meaning the need for less food.And it is environmentally driven.No predators,easy food= no need to fly.The chimp mutation is a negative mutation that doesn't appear as the result of any environmental pressures,but rather because the gene "broke".So how did the apes,including chimps,who live in slightly different environments (man does not live in trees and forage tree leaves,for instance) get the same broken gene as man?
Besides which,all birds are ...well...birds.Humans are not thought to be part of the primate family by creationists,yet you have merely linked similar development due to identical environmental pressures within one group of animals,the birds.
First off, I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.
So, evolution only works one way? So, when birds lose the ability to fly is nothing like when our ancient evolutionary ancestor crawled out of the sea? Sorry, but those birds that lose the ability to fly, if they stay that way long enough they will lose the purpose of having wings and develop something else. That is how evolution works, so don't assume I don't know how it works. Maybe you should gain some knowledge on how evolution and devolution work.
The difficulty with your thesis is that the creationists are completely uninfluenced by reality, evidence, or science. If they were we wouldn't have creationists.
First off, I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution.
So, evolution only works one way? So, when birds lose the ability to fly is nothing like when our ancient evolutionary ancestor crawled out of the sea? Sorry, but those birds that lose the ability to fly, if they stay that way long enough they will lose the purpose of having wings and develop something else. That is how evolution works, so don't assume I don't know how it works. Maybe you should gain some knowledge on how evolution and devolution work.
I don't think I need someone suggesting that a broken gene is an example of "devolution" lecturing me on anything.If you can't grasp the difference between environmental pressures allowing birds to lose flight, and a gene malfunctioning,then save the lecture and go back and reeducate yourself.That fact that you use the term devolution in a serious way indicates a lack of true knowledge on the subject.Or an ID advocate pretending to be an evolutionist.
Location: Moved to Gladstone, MO in June 2022 and back to Minnesota in September 2022
2,072 posts, read 5,061,152 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
If random selection were true, we should not see the great variety of creatures with their noses place in the center of their face, and two eyes above it. Nor should we see their ears on the side of their head, ect.
Well atleast you said a great variety and not all creatures.
Not necessarily. It would only be applicable to a limited variety.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
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.
