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.
Evolution is not a 'speculative' theory. Its reality. I have never ever in my life heard of anyone even doubting it, until I came accross this website. Now I just have fun observing people coming out with the strangest arguments against it
From your above statement it appears to me that you have not taking the initiative to research for yourself evidence of Creation. Good science strives to look at all evidence presented and look at it from an unbiased perspective (never an easy thing to do).
It does yourself no good to run with the herd mentality (which in the end is often wrong) and not even know why you agree with them other than your school books say it is so.
Scientific data comes out quite often that collaborates what the Bible claims.
In common usage the word 'theory' is used to describe opinion or speculation. In science 'theory' and 'fact' are not always different. i.e it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth, has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the 'theories' commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity.
Evolution is no less factual than relativity, or gravitation.
Except the FACT that there is no so-called evidence of evolution that can stand up under scrutiny.
Please state even just one case please with reference to it.
Are you completely ignorant of biology, of genetic mutations and how and why they occur? The literature describing these things is well developed and easily found. The onus is on you to indicate your familiarity with the subject matter before you start throwing piddling snowballs at it.
The controversial idea about evolution is that there can be enough of such mutations over enough time to produce a truly new species from a previously existing one. But once one understands the reality of genetic mutation, then, given that enough time passes and a compatible natural environment exists to allow helpful mutations to become distinguished from the opposite in the context of that environment, it's not hard to grasp that all of today's life forms are results of that process.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 02-06-2008 at 12:32 PM..
Are you completely ignorant of biology, of genetic mutations and how and why they occur? The literature describing these things is well developed and easily found. The onus is on you to indicate your familiarity with the subject matter before you start throwing piddling snowballs at it.
First of all I was replying to nvxplorer. However, what you are saying, mostly rudely, is that you don't have even just one reference that can take the heat.
Secondly, I can stand on my own two feet about any subject that I post about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
The controversial idea about evolution is that there can be enough of such mutations over enough time to produce a truly new species from a previously existing one. But once one understands the reality of genetic mutation, then, given that enough time passes and a compatible natural environment exists to allow helpful mutations to become distinguished from the opposite in the context of that environment, it's not hard to grasp that all of today's life forms are results of that process.
You do realize that the basic working definition of "mutation" is "copying error". Now how can billions of years of "copying errors" add up to a new species, let alone one that could actually survive? Mutations do happen, all the time, but they are not beneficial. Take the flu virus for example, it mutates just about every year now which is why new vaccines have to be developed. If mutations were good for you, then why do we need new vaccines to fight off the flu?
Also, are you at all familiar with study of Probability?
I'm quoting from here: [URL="http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/science/creation-questions/SC-creation-questions-life-origin.htm"]Ankerberg Theological Research Institute - The John Ankerberg Show[/URL]
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe is professor and chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales.
"Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than one in ten to the 40 thousand."
There are other famous evolutionists that have stated that they don't see how it could have happened.
Last edited by StopTheMadnessNow; 02-06-2008 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: typo
You do realize that the basic working definition of "mutation" is "copying error". Now how can billions of years of "copying errors" add up to a new species, let alone one that could actually survive?
You are using the word 'error' in a spurious manner. You would do better to use the word 'variance'.
You are speaking theoretically and in absence of the facts. Have you ever observed a cell mutation in real time? Do you understand how quickly (i.e., in only a few generations) a mutation can become propagated throughout a population of descended organisms? How is it that only a few generations of bacteria can achieve resistance to man-made countermeasures if not by "genetic copying errors"? This is too laughable to even argue.
Do you not admit to the billions of years of time available for cumulative genetic mutations to have a cumulative effect on a family of related organisms? How old do you believe is the Earth's age?
You are using the word 'error' in a spurious manner. You would do better to use the word 'variance'.
You are speaking theoretically and in absence of the facts. Have you ever observed a cell mutation in real time? Do you understand how quickly (i.e., in only a few generations) a mutation can become propagated throughout a population of descended organisms? How is it that only a few generations of bacteria can achieve resistance to man-made countermeasures if not by "genetic copying errors"? This is too laughable to even argue.
Do you not admit to the billions of years of time available for cumulative genetic mutations to have a cumulative effect on a family of related organisms? How old do you believe is the Earth's age?
Actually 'error' is the correct word. But lets take your point of view and call it 'variance'. When a gene 'varies' it takes on some attribute it did not have before, it doesn't become a new one. This is what happens in your bacteria statement. They don't become new type of bacteria, just a varied one. Same is true for virii, this is why we can take a flu shot and be relatively safe for another year. Our bodies have been varied to fight off the flu strain but we haven't turned into something other than a human being.
As for billions of years, if this time was available and these cumulative genetic mutations actually somehow survived, then absolutely they would have an effect on a family of related organisms. This doesn't prove that those effects are in any way, shape, or form beneficial ones. And it certainly doesn't prove that the original organisms have become some totally new, never before heard of organism.
Now, billions of years have not been available according to all the data. And we don't need it to be. It only takes several generations for mutations to be seen. This is why tribes, say from Africa that had never before been introduced into the world other than their own little region have a very distinctness about them. Maybe their noses are shaped different or their ears are larger. I submit to you though, that they are still human beings.
Please state even just one case please with reference to it.
it has been recently noted that there has been a steady increase in rattlesnakes bites in much of the country, the reason? they do not rattle as often as the used to you, why? because we kill those that rattle and give away there position. there are concrete grey squriels in many cities and pigins who fly about as well as a chicken. and the archeologocal record is idesputable by any rational human, particuarly when it come to the island chain of madagascar where we can see them being populated and then slowly evolving. and mutation effecting evolution is simply a could and probaly has happened. however "throwbacks" do happen frequently and if it is beneificel than that one will survive and prosper, like the countinuous appearance of sabertooths and the current appearence of mammath like elephants in indea
it has been recently noted that there has been a steady increase in rattlesnakes bites in much of the country, the reason? they do not rattle as often as the used to you, why? because we kill those that rattle and give away there position. there are concrete grey squriels in many cities and pigins who fly about as well as a chicken. and the archeologocal record is idesputable by any rational human, particuarly when it come to the island chain of madagascar where we can see them being populated and then slowly evolving. and mutation effecting evolution is simply a could and probaly has happened. however "throwbacks" do happen frequently and if it is beneificel than that one will survive and prosper, like the countinuous appearance of sabertooths and the current appearence of mammath like elephants in indea
Hi Steffan,
The more rattlesnack bites are most likely due to humans moving into the areas where rattlesnacks live (I'm not saying that we shouldn't be there) and they are quite aggressive by nature. Grey squirrels also live in the deep woods away from cities. I'm not sure about what the reference to a pigeon flying like a chicken is about Anyhow, none of these demonstrate evolution in any way. They could be showing natural selection which was first a creationist argument not an evolution one. It is the method that God designed to protect the purity of the created kinds.
Madagascar has "millions" of years of missing fossil evidence of any kind. The fossils that are there don't show evolution in action. We do apparently see a decrease in mammal size, this is only a variance.
From your above statement it appears to me that you have not taking the initiative to research for yourself evidence of Creation. Good science strives to look at all evidence presented and look at it from an unbiased perspective (never an easy thing to do).
The problem with that statement is that creationism has nothing that can be studied because it has no subject matter. I've been posting on this forum for close to a year now and I've seen all of the creationism websites and references to Biblical explanations but none of them have any substance. For example Noah's flood is something that creationists try to explain with some very far fetched ideas but there's nothing in the field of geology that someone can research and discover that indeed there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. Science follows the evidence while creationism follows the Bible. You're deceiving yourself if you think that scientists are ignoring important evidence that would topple evolution and support a young earth creationist point of view. No such evidence exists.
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.
Anyhow, none of these demonstrate evolution in any way. They could be showing natural selection which was first a creationist argument not an evolution one. It is the method that God designed to protect the purity of the created kinds.
