Printable View
Most people keep the caps lock off when typing ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Onikaru
How many times do I have to say that I am talking about evolution asin Apes to man (macroevolution) not small changes within a species (microevolution) Blacks and whites would fit in the with microevoltution. I was talking about macroevolution...
Black humans have been around for thousands of years...
you saying evolution is fact has no bearing at all...
It depends on a definition - What is still human and what is another specimen. Unless we have this definition anything posted here might be true or false. Well it might be even with this definition...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Yay, my 30th post! Now I'll be able to try out that rpg thingy.
Im not getting that dictionary out again today :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by Onikaru
How the millions of existing species came about is a question that has plagued evolutionists for a long time. For a species to be a species, it cannot interbreed with other species�even the one from which it is supposed to have developed. If progeny does result, it either is sterile (as in the case of mules) or dies before reaching maturity. According to the science magazine Discover, geneticists now say they have found �a rescue gene, a slight fault in the species barrier� that, while weakening the flies that carried it, enabled some hybrid males of a fruit-fly species to survive. �However, the gene didn�t completely break through the species barrier; it couldn�t render the males fertile,� notes the article. This raises a �troublesome question,� says Discover. �If the parents that carry it don�t benefit from it, and offspring that inherit it can�t pass it on, how could the gene possibly have evolved?�
This makes me wonder what kind of "Evolution" did you study? The one I've studied in school had all major steps and transitions described.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete The Viet
It would still have to result in a belife of a "big bang" type theory though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ADW
there would be far more contridictions if you belived we were created as a "soup" or a bunch of gases that evolved.
Explain the species Culex molestus (mosquito, evolved in the London Underground), Helacyton gartleri (bacterial, from a human carcinoma - that is, human cells), or several others in plant life created from polyploidy. Oh, for that matter, while not directly observed, several environments only formed in recent times show new species not observed before (Mimulus species of fish in copper-high water draining from mines, Cichlids in Lakes Malawi and Victoria), or the growing inability to breed between certain subspecies that are divided by methods evolution states would aid and accelerate speciation, such as silverside fish between marine and estuarine, or the apple maggot fly, which is dividing between the Hawthorn apples and certain introduced domestic apples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Oh, and you're assuming that there is a spontaneous generation of one species from another, not a gradual shift due to accumulating differences from natural selection (microevolution). Also, hermaphroditic and asexual species don't suffer from this limitation.
The Cambrian explosion, to be specific, is the most famous. It was found in the fossil record as the start of what seemed to be a massive shift in complexity (I say seemed to be because creatures before this era lacked hard shells, so fossilization would have been harder then) at the close of an Ice Age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Oh, and interesting on the definition of species, here.
Finally, what's wrong with abiogenesis?Quote:
Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.
Well look at DNA.The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how �the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation� are preserved �by enzymes that continually repair� genetic damage. The journal states: �In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesizedQuote:
Originally Posted by Himiko
Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: �After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."
Could it not be that, given the existence of life, different species of living things might progressively evolve into other species? Well, if that took place, the fossil record of past ages would show this. But does it? Consider the so-called Cambrian period. Here fossils of the major groups of invertebrates first appear together in a spectacular �explosion� of living things. If these vastly differing groups all exploded into life at the one time, how could they possibly have evolved from one another? Darwin himself frankly admitted: �If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.� Fatal indeed!�1 Corinthians 3:19, 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by Himiko
The fossil record reveals that different and very complex life forms appeared suddenly and fully developed. As one professor of natural science commented: �Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.� Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters the accepted length? No, there are not. The truth of the matter is as stated at Genesis 1:25: �God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.� Yes, very good!
Consider also the exciting variety to be seen among living things here on earth! Did the rose, the butterfly, the hummingbird, the peacock, and a thousand other forms of life acquire their distinctive beauty by chance, in a struggle for survival of the fittest? Or are they the masterful design of a loving God who wants mankind to find delight in his works? When we view the exquisite loveliness found throughout this wondrous earth, surely we must exclaim: �How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.��Psalm 104:24.
Design always calls for an intelligent designer. And there is amazing design in living things. Consider the platypus, which lives in Australia. It is the size of a rabbit, has fur like an otter�s, a beak like a duck�s, spurs like a rooster�s, and webbed feet with claws. It lays eggs like a reptile and suckles its young like a mammal. It is at home on land or under water. From what did the platypus evolve? Since it comes out only at night, the platypus could be called the evolutionist�s nightmare. A Harvard University biologist describes it as �a superbly well-designed creature for a particular, and unusual, mode of life.� Who was the superb Designer? It can only be the God who says: �To me belongs every wild animal of the forest.��Psalm 50:10.
Further, what of the instinct that is built into so many living things? For example, there is a tiny bird, the blackpoll warbler, weighing only three quarters of an ounce (21 g). It knows how to choose the right autumn weather to fly from Alaska to New England. There it fattens up on good food and awaits a cold front. Then it takes off, flying up to 20,000 feet (6,100 m) and more to catch the jet stream heading out toward Africa, until the warbler is caught by a prevailing wind that sweeps it down to its destination in South America. The warbler�s instinctive know-how is programmed into a brain the size of a pea. Can the evolutionist explain how such instinct came about? He cannot. But the Bible points out that Jehovah is the all-wise �Maker of heaven and earth, of the sea, and of all that is in them,� including those creatures that are �instinctively wise.��Psalm 146:5, 6; Proverbs 30:24-28.
And How do advocates of evolution explain the actual origin of life? They say that some billions of years ago the ocean surrounding the earth may have become an �organic soup,� though still lifeless. Then, they explain, �a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by a most improbable accident.� Miraculously, this reproduced itself to form other molecules that clustered together to form a living cell. Could anything sound more fantastic? The writer who gave this description stated in his foreword: �This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.� Yes, fiction, but hardly science! National Geographic has said that the programmed instructions (DNA) in one tiny cell �if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books.� How ridiculous it is to say that the living cell created itself accidentally in some primeval soup!
Far more reasonable and understandable is the explanation given by the Bible writer David, who wrote at Psalm 36, verses 5 and 9: �O Jehovah, . . . with you is the source of life.� As advocates of truth, we must support that basic Bible teaching.
Well Its that Not only does the origin of matter and the order in the universe present problems for those who deny the existence of a Creator, but there is the far greater problem of the origin of life itself. There was a time when spontaneous generation (called abiogenesis, meaning origin from nonlife) was believed to produce life. Worms developed out of putrid flesh, lice from dirt, frogs from the mud of pools, etc. But Pasteur�s experiments of nearly a hundred years demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. It is not a scientific argument, since it would not be based upon observation and experiment, but rather upon blind assertions that can neither be observed nor proved. Dr. J. Gray, a leading experimental zoologist, explained: �The spontaneous origin of living from inanimate matter must be regarded as a highly improbable event, and as such can be assumed not to have occurred.�Quote:
Originally Posted by Himiko
The question is simple: Did matter, order, the marvelous universe and the unexplainable miracle of life occur purely through the outworkings of chance, or were they produced through the design of a great Creator? The former is so implausible that it takes more faith to believe in the materialistic theory of evolution than it does to believe in God! It remains true that �the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork"
You'll be surprised how much research has been done to disprove evolutionary theory, actually. From Butterfly Metamorphosis to DNA to fossil spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
Many evolutionary biologists and even Pope John Paul II opine that the theory of evolution does not contend with the existence of God.
There are many theories like the germ theory which describe the processes and events in the world, none of which refute the fact that god may or may not exist.
Yes lol. I have said that "most opposition comes from scientists... its just that the oposition is normaly other theorys though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
I cannot vouch for the pope though, I'm not catholic, nor accept thier views.
I didn't refer to him as a Catholic but someone who is not an aethist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
He is still a catholic though, there for his actions mean nothing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
And that is the only criterion he shall be judged by you on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
In a nut shell, Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
Sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
I'm sad your sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
Hehe. Don't be. I'm not sad. I just thought it was sad to see such a display of determinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xena
I believe that you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by jose_boriqua_mi
Because DNA is a double helix constructed of two strands of complementary nitrogenous bases (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine) it can in fact repair itself using spare bases, since each strand is a mirror image of the other (Adenine always links with Thymine, Guanine always links with Cytosine) Thus each strand can act like a model for a damaged part of the other. However if a deletion or inversion of complementary sequences on both strands occurs then the mutation may remain.
Oh and Dingy is right. If you value someone purely on their religous beliefs, then that is incredibly sad.
I'm sure he's a very devout and good man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeveo
It does not change the fact he defy's Ja's true word, and to Ja ever loyal I stand, his vict'ry is certain.
If you don't like that, do you really think you can stand up to the sword of Jah and Gideon's?
Wait,wait,wait..please tell me that this is a joke.....
No.
See yonder through the breadth of earth
The sight my heart entrances
�Jehovah�s band of warriors
In unity advances.
Their helmets, bright against the sky,
Bid ignorance and error fly.
They shout aloud their battle cry:
�Christ reigns! O earth, receive him.�
The King, Christ Jesus, leads the way;
His leadership they follow.
He speaks the word, and they obey
And thus expect no sorrow.
They wield their sword, the Word of God.
Their feet are with the good news shod.
They walk the way their Master trod;
Clear to the death they follow.
For, see, the time has come at last
For Christ to reign in power.
Soon all his foes shall lick the dust;
Before him they must cower.
His God, Jehovah, bares his arm.
His trumpet sounds a loud alarm.
Be wise, you rulers, do no harm;
You judges, own Christ�s power.
So, about humans originally being monkeys...
:WOW: Book of Judges?? Gideon huh?? Let's see....Bigamy...Idol worship....Vanity. Sounds like exactly the kind of devout man to mete out my punishment. Oh and don't EVER DARE threaten me with divine retribution....
The measure of a person is in their actions. As long as their religous beliefs don't cause another harm they shouldn't even be a factor.
(Sorry if this is completely off topic. I get a little pissed when people threaten me by quoting scripture)
It's not my problem.
Stating the fact that god will win, no matter what people argue.
He wants everyone to be saved right? Was I implying you would get judgement?
you ever talk to me like that again and ill break your shit off, K pumpkin?
Just read the song she posted and all shall be clear. Peh. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Saeveo
So. I don't find macroevolution that improbable. In theory it could work. That we can't reproduce or explain it might be just one of the marvels of nature.
The thing I find rather interesting is the transition from lifeless to living. Once you've got yourself a piece of DNA (or a similar macromolecule) that can recreate itself, you've already got life.
However, scientists don't really know much about the possibilities of such a thing forming, or whether it was completely random or not. It did happen, one way or another.
Eurgh. This sucks.