It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Resistance's replies in bold (I don't know how to sort out the quotes yet). Please be patient with me or tell me how to do it.


Originally posted by Merkeva

Im going to ask you this again since you dodged the question last time I asked.As you have said microevolution has been observed right ? So we have proven that small changes crop up in the genes of animals , ok?How many small changes can an animal go through before its a different animal?If I have a jar of green jelly beans and each day for 3 years I take out a green bean and add a red one what happens? Slowly but surly the jar of green beans turns into a jar of red beans, so what happened here ? Well I'll tell you, changes on the small scale amount to changes on a large scale.What your saying is simple ilogical, you cant say micro evolution happens but macro evolution does not.


You may end up with a lot of red jelly beans but they'll still be jelly beans. My point is, kinds or genus do not change into other kinds or genus because of MISSING GENETIC MATERIAL. It just will never, ever, ever, ever happen. No matter how many eons of time you wait for it to.



Resistance says:
Choke. You may call it science to believe that turnips can turn into bumblebees, but I call it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or worse. But why should you believe your lying eyes?


Merkeva says:
Nowhere in any science book will you find,something stating that a turnip can turn into a bumblebee nowhere. It sounds to me as if you think, we think, animals spontainiously change form over night, I know I wont wake up tomorrow and find my pet dog has turned into an ardvark but mabye that just your understanding of evolution or lack therof.(note proper use of bold)

Evolution takes time and lots of it look whats its done in 4 billion years we have such a diverse ecosystem, this didnt happen over night.Life will arise anywhere the conditions are right, how it happends? Were not sure , not yet anyway and we admit that, but were getting there, you want abiogensus? Wait a few years im sure we'll find some clues in the mean time try reading some of Richard Dawkins work I recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" or take a look here:

Resistance says:
As I said before, no matter how many billions of eons of time you take, one kind of genus will never, ever, ever, never change into another kind or genus.



Merkeva's quote:

Polymers Containing Nucleotides Are Capable of Self-replication

Organic molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides can interact to form polymers. The polymer of amino acids and nucleotides are called polypeptides and polynucleotides respectively. These polymers are capable of directing their own synthesis. For example, a polynucleotide is able to influence the replication of other polynucleotides by acting as a template.

The complementary nature of nucleotides is crucial in the origin of life. Because A preferentially binds to U and G preferentially binds to C, a polynucleotide is thus able to serve as a template for synthesizing the complementary strand. However, this complementary templating mechanism only occurs slowly without the assistance of certain protein catalysts, or enzymes. Although no such enzyme existed in the "prebiotic soup," certain minerals and metal ions filled in the role of enzymes. After a period of time, slow replicating systems of polynucleotides were established.


library.thinkquest.org...


[edit on 29-9-2005 by Merkeva]

RESISTANCE SAYS:
Merkeva, prebiotic soup and all the time in the world is nog going to create life from dead matter. If it were possible to do this by accident, science would have done it on purpose in the laboratory.[b/]








[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   


You may end up with a lot of red jelly beans but they'll still be jelly beans. My point is, kinds or genus do not change into other kinds or genus because of MISSING GENETIC MATERIAL. It just will never, ever, ever, ever happen. No matter how many eons of time you wait for it to.


This was just an example replace red beans with peanuts, get my drift?Playing semantics wont change the facts.






Merkeva, prebiotic soup and all the time in the world is nog going to create life from dead matter. If it were possible to do this by accident, science would have done it on purpose in the laboratory.


Science cant do it because :
1)We can't create the right conditions in a lab.
2)We dont have 3 billion years.

Life is not an accident ,matter strives for complexity life is just on another level of complexity than say, organic compounds.We have used the same science we study evolution with to clone sheep and many other animals, catch crimnals and to treat sickness, so we must be doing something right.


[edit on 29-9-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Scientists HAVE created organic ingredients in a laboratory setting. For more information about this, please check out the Hypothetical Origins of Life - The Real Enemy of Creationism thread. Rren's post there shows the most up-to-date example of abiogenetic successes.

I responded to you, resistance, at the bottom of page 5, but you may have missed it because you were posting.

Zip

[edit on 9/29/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Resistance:

Choke. You may call it science to believe that turnips can turn into bumblebees, but I call it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or worse. But why should you believe your lying eyes?


Actually, I think that maybe you DON'T belong at ATS. Nowhere did anybody say "turnips turn into bumblebees". Nobody.

You never answer a straight question with anything resembling a straight answer.

You constantly make ludicrous analogies to support your own "theories" (none of which are proven, never mind sensical), and when people actually try to TEACH you something, you insult them or try to make people feel sorry for you.

So, you know, if you want to argue that creationism is a valid point of view, try finding FACTS instead of making wild comparisons.

And if you think that believing in Evolution means you cannot believe in God, then you are not a Christian, apparently, because my God (the Christian God) allows me to believe what I want without exception.

So then what religion are you?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva



Life is not an accident ,matter strives for complexity life is just on another level of complexity than say, organic compounds




Matter strives for complexity? Life is not an accident?

Sounds like you've transferred your faith from God to the atom.

You certainly do ascribe god-like qualities to matter (the atom).



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Resistance replies in bold

Originally posted by Jakomo

Actually, I think that maybe you DON'T belong at ATS. Nowhere did anybody say "turnips turn into bumblebees". Nobody.

Quite obviously I used that as an example of what evolutionists believe. In fact an evolutionist believes that first came one-celled plants that evolved into all the other sea plants, that evolved into all the fish, that evolved into all the reptiles, that evolved into all the birds, that evolved into all the mammals including humans. I was just giving a colorful example to demonstrate your abstract theoretical nonsense.

You never answer a straight question with anything resembling a straight answer.

You constantly make ludicrous analogies to support your own "theories" (none of which are proven, never mind sensical), and when people actually try to TEACH you something, you insult them or try to make people feel sorry for you.

I always give a straight answer. You could even say a POINTED straight answer -- designed to penetrate through your 12-years of government school propaganda delivered to you by adults trained in brainwashing techniques to use on impressionable young minds.

So, you know, if you want to argue that creationism is a valid point of view, try finding FACTS instead of making wild comparisons.

I've done nothing else but present facts here. It's you guys who are presenting myths and dreams -- the "science of evolution," the science of looking for proof for 200 years of one single transitional life form -- and still looking. That's not science! That's fanatical and stubborn dedication to atheism.

And if you think that believing in Evolution means you cannot believe in God, then you are not a Christian, apparently, because my God (the Christian God) allows me to believe what I want without exception.

So then what religion are you?

I'm Christian. The Christian God says in the first commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and the second commandment says, Thou shalt have no other God beside me. You are making the atom into a god, saying the atom is self-existant and as Minerva said above, that the atom "strives toward life and toward complexity." You are ascribing god-like qualities to the atom. So which God do you believe in -- the real Eternal Creator God of scripture or the atom?



[edit on 30-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   



Matter strives for complexity? Life is not an accident?

Sounds like you've transferred your faith from God to the atom.

You certainly do ascribe god-like qualities to matter (the atom).




No I'm a Christian(non-Practicing),and I think god may have given these qualitys to matter.I dont think the atom is god, so dont try putting words in my mouth, ok ?

For the record you have produced no evidence for creationisim, just attempted to attack the theory of evolution, and you call this approach science?


[edit on 30-9-2005 by Merkeva]

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva




Matter strives for complexity? Life is not an accident?

Sounds like you've transferred your faith from God to the atom.

You certainly do ascribe god-like qualities to matter (the atom).




No I'm a Christian(non-Practicing),and I think god may have given these qualitys to matter.I dont think the atom is god, so dont try putting words in my mouth, ok ?

For the record you have produced no evidence for creationisim, just attempted to attack the theory of evolution, and you call this approach science?



Merkeva, you admit you're giving godlike qualities to matter, but you thnk that's okay since now you say God actually put these qualities in matter?

I have produced evidence for creationism. I said what we see around us fits the Creation model, not the Evolution model. The Creation model says everything was created by God, as it is, all finished, not evolving gradually over millions of years. In fact, what we see are billions of creatures of all types and sorts -- plants, animals, bugs, reptiles, birds, fish -- so many we can't even catalogue them all. Each of these creatures is amazing in themselves. There is no evidence anywhere of any creature evolving into another kind. And there never will be because it requires COMPLETELY NEW GENETIC MATERIAL.

So that's what the proof is -- what you see with your two eyes everywhere you look. Creatures made of God -- all finished.

Spontaneous generation (life coming spontaneously from dead matter) was disproved over 100 years ago in the laboratory (the dead meat in a vacuum experiment proved no maggots would spontaneously be produced on dead meat.)

And as I said, punctuated equilibrium has become more fashionable among the theories of origins, gradualism having been wrung dry over the years with every possible attempt expended to produce a transitional life form "proof."

Evolution is a desperate and failed attempt to disprove God.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
So that's what the proof is -- what you see with your two eyes everywhere you look. Creatures made of God -- all finished.

Not finnished.. the recently found hobbit is believed to be decended from us yet was not human. The neadathal is genetically not human either.. neither is the chimp yet they are all closely related to us. To suggest that these species are 'finnished' you would have to ignore all the hundreds of other primates that have existed and become extincts throughout history. It would be like saying someone is your brother or sister then claiming you don't share a parent with them.

Of course we haven't even started discussing how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs without becoming dinner.. for everything to be 'all finnished' it would mean we would have been wiped out.. care to address this one?

Spontaneous generation (life coming spontaneously from dead matter) was disproved over 100 years ago in the laboratory (the dead meat in a vacuum experiment proved no maggots would spontaneously be produced on dead meat.)

A 100 years ago they knew very little about science or aborinesis.. three hundred years before that they thought the sun revolved around the earth [btw it doesn't]. Why would meat produce maggots without fly eggs? Maggots are the offspring of an already existent species so saying this disproves spontaneous generation is just silly. Meat in a jar also would be nothing like a primitive earth required to nurture aboriginesis.. it is meat in a jar. You may as well say a spider not growing wings to chase a lost fly proves creation.

As for you claims that 'evolutionists think fish come from plants'.. do you think we believe plants laid fish eggs?
PLEASE at least make an attempt to understand a theory before making foolish statements.. so far you have been ignoring us, insulting us and then turning around telling us your own ignorant version or what evolution is, to which you argue against with the same ignorance and then you call us deluded. Please educate yourself.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Haven't read the thread, but the term dinosaur is an English term as such, no English terms are in the Bible, but the Bible does mention dinosaurs.

For example, the Bible mentions 2 different classes of flying creatures, one which was prehistoric created from water on the 5th "day" and another from earth on the 6th. Some descriptions in the Job of creatures fits well with some dinosaurs, and this is really interesting.

There are numerous reports, drawings, etc,.....from thousands of years ago into just a couple of hundred years ago that match dinosaurs quite well. There are drawings on pots and such that agree completely with dinosaur finds, but mainstream science dismisses these hundreds and perhaps even thousands of eye-witness accounts.

Pretty much what people called dragons were likely dinosaurs.

American Indians descibe and depict a number of dinosaurs in drawings down to fine detail which matches modern descriptions except the time.

Imo, mainstream science is just off. I am not saying the earth is young, but I do believe an objective person should conclude dinosaurs coexisted with man and are written and drawn in historical records, such as records in the Roman Empire.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Riley, Neanderthals were humans. They were just a distinct tribe of people.

There is no reason for example to think Neanderthals would not be able or likely even to mate with modern people and produce children. They were just people.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Apologies but I really cannot take someone seriously when they claim dinosaurs and humans co-existed, it is laughable.. as is siting the bible, obsquer cave paintings and fairytales as evidence that they did.. and most do not consider the bible a scientific journal. They became extinct something like 160 million years probably when we we scurrying under rocks somewhere.. that and we would never have survived competing with them for food as we would be on the menu.. that part is pretty much just common sense.

Riley, Neanderthals were humans. They were just a distinct tribe of people.

There is no reason for example to think Neanderthals would not be able or likely even to mate with modern people and produce children. They were just people.

There is alot of evidence in fact.. of course you failed to back up your own statements.. care to offer some now that isn't completely interpritive?

news.bbc.co.uk...
The DNA extracted from the ribs of a Neanderthal infant buried in southern Russia 29,000 years ago was found to be too distinct from modern human DNA to be related.

"There wasn't much, if any mixture, between Neanderthals and modern humans," said William Goodwin, of the University of Glasgow, UK. "Though they co-existed, we can't find any evidence of genetic material being passed from Neanderthals to modern humans."


Another:

news.bbc.co.uk...
The scientists found that while, unsurprisingly, modern humans show clear genetic signs of their Cro-Magnon ancestry, no such link between Neanderthal DNA and modern European DNA could be established.

The results, they say, indicate that Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the genes of modern humans.


There is much more evidence that supports this fact.. like chimps they are just evolutionary cousins.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
So that's what the proof is -- what you see with your two eyes everywhere you look. Creatures made of God -- all finished.


Riley said:
Not finnished.. the recently found hobbit is believed to be decended from us yet was not human. The neadathal is genetically not human either.. neither is the chimp yet they are all closely related to us.

A hobbit? Excuse me? The Neanderthal was just a human being, same genetics. The chimp is genetically different -- needs completely new genetic material which isn't there and never will be there. And in case you didn't know, DNA is very, very complicated, and our scientists can't even create it in a lab ON PURPOSE. So how do you suppose these things managed to happen BY ACCIDENT? I don't care HOW MUCH TIME you give it to happen, it just isn't ever, ever, ever GOING TO.


Riley: To suggest that these species are 'finnished' you would have to ignore all the hundreds of other primates that have existed and become extincts throughout history. It would be like saying someone is your brother or sister then claiming you don't share a parent with them.

Of course we haven't even started discussing how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs without becoming dinner.. for everything to be 'all finnished' it would mean we would have been wiped out.. care to address this one?

First off, you've been watching too many Jurassic Park movies. Dinausaurs are not invincible creatures that cannot coexist with man. Most of the dinausaurs were plant eaters. Humans had weapons to defend themselves from dinausaurs. And just like we don't have lions and tigers prowling around the streets of our cities today, neither did people in the time of the dinasaurs have them prowling around their cities.

As to your second point, just because a species becomes extinct does not prove evolution. To the contrary, species are contained within kinds. In other words, the genetic material for all cats was included in the first cat God made. Likewise with man -- the first man and woman God created had all the genetic material in them to produce all the races in the world. The first dog God made had all the genetic material in it for all the dogs there would ever be. So for a species to become truly extinct requires the extinction of a whole kind. And if that does happen, so what? We can't even catalog all the life forms we've got already. We haven't even discovered them all.



Resistance said:

Spontaneous generation (life coming spontaneously from dead matter) was disproved over 100 years ago in the laboratory (the dead meat in a vacuum experiment proved no maggots would spontaneously be produced on dead meat.)



Riley said: A 100 years ago they knew very little about science or aborinesis.. three hundred years before that they thought the sun revolved around the earth [btw it doesn't]. Why would meat produce maggots without fly eggs? Maggots are the offspring of an already existent species so saying this disproves spontaneous generation is just silly. Meat in a jar also would be nothing like a primitive earth required to nurture aboriginesis.. it is meat in a jar. You may as well say a spider not growing wings to chase a lost fly proves creation.

Actually, 100 or so years ago people did believe that dead matter could produce life (known as the theory of spontaneous generation), thought maggots spontaneously came from the dead meat. This was disproved when the flies were prevented to lay their eggs, and this is considered to be proof against the theory of spontaneous generation. Unfortuantely, the evolutionists still to this day don't believe that dead matter is incapable of producing life.

Riley -- As for you claims that 'evolutionists think fish come from plants'.. do you think we believe plants laid fish eggs?
PLEASE at least make an attempt to understand a theory before making foolish statements.. so far you have been ignoring us, insulting us and then turning around telling us your own ignorant version or what evolution is, to which you argue against with the same ignorance and then you call us deluded. Please educate yourself.

Well, I sure don't know how one kind or genus can turn into another. In fact I've been claiming over and over here that it CAN'T. You guys who believe in evolution say it CAN. I agree it's ridiculous to think a plant can lay an egg and produce a fish. So YOU tell ME, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN -- since you're the one who claims it DID happen.

BTW, glad to see that you're starting to see the light.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by Merkeva




Matter strives for complexity? Life is not an accident?

Sounds like you've transferred your faith from God to the atom.

You certainly do ascribe god-like qualities to matter (the atom).




No I'm a Christian(non-Practicing),and I think god may have given these qualitys to matter.I dont think the atom is god, so dont try putting words in my mouth, ok ?

For the record you have produced no evidence for creationisim, just attempted to attack the theory of evolution, and you call this approach science?



Merkeva, you admit you're giving godlike qualities to matter, but you thnk that's okay since now you say God actually put these qualities in matter?

I have produced evidence for creationism. I said what we see around us fits the Creation model, not the Evolution model. The Creation model says everything was created by God, as it is, all finished, not evolving gradually over millions of years. In fact, what we see are billions of creatures of all types and sorts -- plants, animals, bugs, reptiles, birds, fish -- so many we can't even catalogue them all. Each of these creatures is amazing in themselves. There is no evidence anywhere of any creature evolving into another kind. And there never will be because it requires COMPLETELY NEW GENETIC MATERIAL.

So that's what the proof is -- what you see with your two eyes everywhere you look. Creatures made of God -- all finished.

Spontaneous generation (life coming spontaneously from dead matter) was disproved over 100 years ago in the laboratory (the dead meat in a vacuum experiment proved no maggots would spontaneously be produced on dead meat.)

And as I said, punctuated equilibrium has become more fashionable among the theories of origins, gradualism having been wrung dry over the years with every possible attempt expended to produce a transitional life form "proof."

Evolution is a desperate and failed attempt to disprove God.


No where have I said matter has godlike qualitys,and please define "Godlike Qualitys".See ,your putting words in my mouth again and for the record I said may have given matter these qualitys .I'd also like to point out that all animals are transitional species , there are constantly evolving.Now in an earlier post you have admitted micro-evolution has been observed, now your going on to say everything is finished ,how so, please explain this.

Now lets take mutation, im sure you'll agree it takes place, mutation is the source of new genitic material, simple.

And personally I'd rather think I was 14 billion years in the making than being thrown together in 7 days , I think evolution is pre-programed into the universe(by someone/thing) and that the true gensis is on-going now as we speak.

This artical from bbc proves we are evolving or rather our brains are :





By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.
One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe.

This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science.


news.bbc.co.uk...

So taking a look at this we can see that approx. 30% of humans have an advantagious gene which leads to bigger brains.Now because theres a difference in the genitic code of humans we must point out a cause of this
which is evolution, I hardly thing god is droping in to service the human race.




The other, called the ASPM variant(Gene), originated at a time that coincides with the spread of agriculture, settled cities and the first record of written language.


Now I find this also good proof for evolution, the gene in question (ASPM varient) croped up by mutation



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
A hobbit? Excuse me?



www.talkorigins.org...
Homo floresiensis is a species of dwarf human discovered at the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004). H. floresienses was only about 1 meter in height and fully bipedal, with a very small brain size of 417cc.


The Neanderthal was just a human being, same genetics.

I just PROVED that they don't have the same genetics.. please read my previous post and clicky on the links.

So how do you suppose these things managed to happen BY ACCIDENT? I don't care HOW MUCH TIME you give it to happen, it just isn't ever, ever, ever GOING TO.

Does every time you type 'ever' make it more real for you? It doesn't do anything for me. Please actually provide some evidence yourself without having tantrumes. It does nothing for your credibility.

First off, you've been watching too many Jurassic Park movies.

No.. I found them quite boring. I like Quenten Tarrintino though.. oh and aliens.. does this mean I believe a nasty little critter is going to burst through my ribcage? What is the point on making assumptions on what kind of movies I watch? Couldn't you actually post some scientific data to debate with? Please?

Dinausaurs are not invincible creatures that cannot coexist with man. Most of the dinausaurs were plant eaters. Humans had weapons to defend themselves from dinausaurs. And just like we don't have lions and tigers prowling around the streets of our cities today, neither did people in the time of the dinasaurs have them prowling around their cities.

Hail 'Dr' Hovind once again!
You have got to be an alter ego. I love satire.


BTW, glad to see that you're starting to see the light.

Wtf?


Now.. regarding your posting methods. This will be the third time I have explained this to you but I will attempt it again. Instead of typing:
(b)blablabla(/b).. type: (quote)blablabla(/quote). It's much the same thing. I know it's more sillables but I'm sure you can manage. Don't forget to swap ( for ].

[edit on 1-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Merkeva,my replies are in bold.

I'd also like to point out that all animals are transitional species , there are constantly evolving. Now in an earlier post you have admitted micro-evolution has been observed, now your going on to say everything is finished ,how so, please explain this.

Speciation is occurring. This means the genes are already in the organism. There is nothing new being introduced. There are no scales turning into feathers, for example.

Now lets take mutation, im sure you'll agree it takes place, mutation is the source of new genitic material, simple.

If mutation is the source of genetic material, would you like to go play with some uranium, or sit in front of an x-ray machine for a few hours without your lead shield on? Mutation is the source of the DESTRUCTION of genetic material. It is NEVER helpful, ALWAYS harmful.

And personally I'd rather think I was 14 billion years in the making than being thrown together in 7 days , I think evolution is pre-programed into the universe(by someone/thing) and that the true gensis is on-going now as we speak.

We're not talking about what you'd like to have happened here, are we? This is not a proof. We should be talking about what DID happen. And God did not bestow mysterious powers to the atom and then sit back and wait billions of years for it all to come about.

This artical from bbc proves we are evolving or rather our brains are :





By comparing modern man with our ancestors of 37,000 years ago, the Chicago team discovered big changes in two genes linked to brain size.
One of the new variants emerged only 5,800 years ago yet is present in 30% of today's humans, they believe.

This is very short in evolutionary terms, suggesting intense selection pressures, they told Science.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Well, I have to agree with you that man today is actually not as healthy and long-lived as he was in the beginning when God first created humans. In the beginning man lived almost 1,000 years, was healthy, had no deformities. But this kind of goes along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that things tend to slow down, break down, and quit.

So taking a look at this we can see that approx. 30% of humans have an advantagious gene which leads to bigger brains.Now because theres a difference in the genitic code of humans we must point out a cause of this
which is evolution, I hardly thing god is droping in to service the human race.

The other, called the ASPM variant(Gene), originated at a time that coincides with the spread of agriculture, settled cities and the first record of written language.

Now I find this also good proof for evolution, the gene in question (ASPM varient) croped up by mutation.

I don't see where we're getting any smarter. If there's an ASPM variant gene as you say that's made man smarter and you're positive it's here because of mutation, maybe this means that the gene was there all along but now it's starting to show itself, that through mutation this gene was lost in a large proportion of the populace. That would be more likely. Things like genes don't just "happen."


[edit on 1-10-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 1-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   


Mutation is the source of the DESTRUCTION of genetic material. It is NEVER helpful, ALWAYS harmful.


This statment alone exposes how little you know about evolution.Mutation is the source of all the benifits from evolution, its part of the mechinism of evolution.




We're not talking about what you'd like to have happened here, are we? This is not a proof. We should be talking about what DID happen. And God did not bestow mysterious powers to the atom and then sit back and wait billions of years for it all to come about.


FYI I was presenting a personal opinion not proof of evolution.And how do you know god did'nt?




Well, I have to agree with you that man today is actually not as healthy and long-lived as he was in the beginning when God first created humans. In the beginning man lived almost 1,000 years, was healthy, had no deformities. But this kind of goes along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that things tend to slow down, break down, and quit.


Again you attempt to put words in my mouth, I said nothing about the longevity of the human species, and if you think the human race is "slowing down , breaking down, and quiting" you must be blind to the advances we have made over the past 2000 years if anything were speeding up, building and pushing foward.



I don't see where we're getting any smarter. If there's an ASPM variant gene as you say that's made man smarter and you're positive it's here because of mutation, maybe this means that the gene was there all along but now it's starting to show itself, that through mutation this gene was lost in a large proportion of the populace. That would be more likely. Things like genes don't just "happen."


If you dont see we're getting smarter look at my last paragraph again, and yes I'm pretty confident its a product of mutation.A bad or loss of gene by mutation wont be permeated through-out the gene-pool, a crippled or less intellegent animal is sure to loose chances to mate to stronger healthy animals.Only when an advantage occurs by chance due to mutation is the gene spread through the gene-pool because animals with this advantagious gene are going to produce more offspring, but this of course is the basics of evolution and the fact I have to explain this to you shows how little you have reasearched into the subject.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Merkeva, you said: "Mutation is the source of all the benifits from evolution, its part of the mechinism of evolution. "

But if this were true, then pregnant women would be getting their babies x-rayed, etcetera, so they could "evolve."

As Dr. Spock on Star Treck would say, This does not compute.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Merkeva, you said: "Mutation is the source of all the benifits from evolution, its part of the mechinism of evolution. "

But if this were true, then pregnant women would be getting their babies x-rayed, etcetera, so they could "evolve."

As Dr. Spock on Star Treck would say, This does not compute.





Evolution takes generations the chances of an advantagious mutation to spring up from x-ray treament in a pregnant woman is highly unlikely and would probally cause a defect in the child who in turn has less chances to pass on his/her genes, but on the off chance which occurs from time to time the child may gain an advantage which would give it more of a chance to sire children, the reason we dont do this is because there are more chances of bad mutations than good ones.

And Spock would actually say "This is a highly logical deduction" because I dont think he was into creationisim, I wonder why.....



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Riley -- Thanks for the tips on posting and for the interesting articles you put up.

I don't really have much to say except this.

From what I know about Neanderthal, he was fully human. If there are differences in the DNA, that's not hard to fathom because over the years our genetic material is breaking down. We are living shorter lives, having more deformities, and we are just generally weaker. So I'd attribute this to the damage done to the DNA over the years. And there may be other things that would produce differences in DNA -- inbreeding, incest, and over time just the cumulation of wear and tear on the creation over the generations -- as I spoke about to Minerva, that when God first made humans they were healthy and smart and lived almost 1,000 years. So I do believe in devolution because it conforms with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution contradicts that law.

As to your hobbit skeleton -- all this does is show that there are or were people who lived on the earth who were small. Ever hear of pygmies? Maybe it's a child? Who knows? What does this have to do with proving evolution?

I've never tried to say there's not lots of "species" variation among kinds.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join