Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But the problem with the evolution debate is the following:
The word evolution has many meanings.
You can see evolution in a petrishdish while selecting genes, duplicating them, pushing them, reduplicating them, ...
You can see evolution in the fossil records over 500 million years, look at insects.
Look at what evolution can do to a horse over a timespan of 50 million years. I find the fossil record of the horse quite unique and "complete" compared to others.
So the observations are there.
The fossils are there...
The experiments have been done.
More then 90% of mutations tun out very very very bad.
Why is it so hard to believe that the rodent we should've been evolved from 165 million years ago simply is todays rodent?
Why is it hard to believe the lungfish 450 mya are lungfish we see today in Australia?
Aren't we seeing more then there is just to push out a group called "creationists"? What box are you putting me in?
We know how much incomplete lineage sorting occurred in the great ape lineage, because we've compared their genomes. Since there are hundreds of thousands of ERVs, it would be immensely unlikely that most of them happened to fall into the regions where humans and gorillas are the closest pair, unlikely enough that that hypothesis would be rejected.Really, then explain to me: why don't you expect humans sharing more ERV's with gorillas than chimps due to incomplete lineage sorting in primate lineages? I'd love to hear this one...
I want you to go to wikipedia, or whereever she is displayed and observe.
But Lucy is a bad example.
I want to look at all the fossils, and ask you how they can be linked together?
If you tell me squirells come from mice, that would make sense somehow.
When the squirells start evolving to apelike creatures, that eventually get out of the trees to become humans ... I see nothing in the observation field leading up that way.
As a kid it was displayed nice to me in animations. Now I have seen the fossils, I know the animations leading from fish to humans is a hypothesis and not to be taken serious.
According to Mr. Hovind, humans should then evolve into tobacco plants.And forget about just fossils. The extreme concrete evidence lies in our DNA. We can show that the closer a species is to us as shown by the fossil record the closer they are to us in DNA. There is no reason for that to be the case if we were created.
According to Mr. Hovind, humans should then evolve into tobacco plants.
Like I? like dad? like ...Yes but we all know that Mr. Hovind is both an idiot and a liar.
How did you become a creationist?
PS. If you do answer, you are more truthful than I thought you would be,
and I would like to apologise for doubting you.
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.' (Hebrews 11.4).
One question, what makes you think that 90% of mutations are "very very bad". That is provably false. Over 90% of mutations make no difference whatsoever.
You seemed to be a creationist from some earlier posts. You used some bad logic by even mentioning Nebraska man and Piltdown man. What box do you put yourself in?
I may have been wrong putting up nebreska man...
But it shows how long they've mistaken a tooth for something else.
Piltdown man was done by amateurs, INTENTIONALLY. Nebreska man, I don't know for sure, but it was mistaken for decades.
The vision of Itchyosaurs and Triceratops have changed over time too.
Mutations happen all the time, but cells restore them after being duplicated. When it doesn't do that in time, bad things such as cancer happen.
Ii can give you a lot of bad mutations, leukemia, cancer,
I can give you maybe 1 or 3 benefitical, like increased bone density.
But those mutations are so rare they don't get setteled into mankind.
We see evolution on the continents, colours. But our DNA genome is worldwide 7 billion people, no matter what colour.
Can you give me a couple of examples of beneficial mutations and has anybody seen hands and feet of lucy yet?
Or the ones from tiktaalik?
You still do not understand why it was extremely foolish to bring up Nebraska Man, and you have that story wrong, or Piltdown Man. I see that you claim you are pagan, but from your arguments I doubt that. But let's pretend that you are Christian for kicks. In that case bringing up Jim Jones or the Whacko from Waco would be the same as what you did. They are no more valid arguments against evolution than those two characters are valid arguments against Christianity.
Nor do you understand mutations. Once again the vast majority of mutations are benign. They have no effect whatsoever. Most of your genome is "junk DNA" a mutation there will almost always have no effect whatsoever.
Now two positive mutations in the human genome. You probably have one. Can you eat cheese?
The second it is unlikely that you have. It is the sickle cell mutation.
8 percent junk dna which isnt junk at all. look at hervs. is that the most???? And what mutation did we get out of phoenix???
Is a pagan this or that? Man I hate boxes... Nebraska man was a pig tooth, piltdown man was a fraud by evolutionists hoping to write history. Which they did.
Please try again in English.
Over 90% of your DNA is junk DNA, and it is pretty much junk. Don't listen to lying creationists that are trying to bend the facts.
Yes, Nebraska Man was a pig tooth. He was never widely accepted at all. It is a double failure on your part. Piltdown man was a fraud. He was not a fraud by evolutionists. It looks like you don't know your facts at all and you argue just like a creationist Christian.
Why on Earth did you ask about Phoenix?
Fine, but what about reality?
The moral and spiritual realities that the believer sees in Scripture - indeed, the fuzzy measuring dilemmas that physicists from Einstein to Robert Oppenheimer saw - are in fact more real than any supposed naturalistic and rationalistic perception of physical reality.
The moral and spiritual realities that the believer sees in Scripture - indeed, the fuzzy measuring dilemmas that physicists from Einstein to Robert Oppenheimer saw - are in fact more real than any supposed naturalistic and rationalistic perception of physical reality.
OK I get your point and I'm going to try to address this discussion more neutral.
The observations of junk DNA appear to bring forth none adaptive advantgements. However, we have brought such a virus in our junk dna to life. Name phoenix, this a virus responsible for the mutation called "leukemia".
So what observations show us a beneficial mutation? I have seen color enhanement, I have seen increased bone density. But none of them really appear to be responsible to link at the theory. By the theory I mean fish to human.
What we have learned from chicken pox is that our imunesystem can build a tolerance if it has been in contact with a less harmful form of it.
We also learned why European people have such high tolerance in their imunesystem... Diseases seem to whipe out entire species, but mankind has doctors so we have vaccins. And were it not for anti biotics, we might've already been an extinct species.
I have done some "re"reading and you are right about junk DNA. However, what I meant was: 8% of our genome consists retrovirusses such as phoenix.
We are in our kiddy shoes looking at mutations, but I see no significant ones adding up to the theory. They do show however a significant part of our imunesystem and how viruses evolve into our cells. It's like viruses hack our cells and change the coding to their benefit, not to the benefit of the species. Evolution can put a trigger on it so you turn on a switch that builds up resistance and the strong ones survive. Those who do not simply die off. Again, the chicken pox is a great example in matters as that.
'Real' to whom...?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?