The difficulty for you guys, is that I do not set out to be "wrong".
But you do not take on board when people point out that you have made a mistake.
Unless you make an attempt to learn, you will continue to be wrong.
When you say "monkeys made human babies", that's the picture in my head - not sundry variations ended up looking human enough. I am not doing this to chide you, from what you have said (about Evolution) that's the clearest picture I can manage, of what you believe.
It happens over so many generations that it is impossible to point out the exact generation where "non human ape" becomes "human".
Even Creationists when presented with the hominid family tree can't agree which are human and which are "apes".
If you wanted to take the words of Jesus and "evolve" them to fit a more naturalistic paradigm - with talking animals, or something - I would heartily agree; but if you took those same words and changed them to random chaos, as if that was saying something better (no less) I would be offended: you would not have made them intelligible to someone who understands "chaos", 'chaos' by definition cannot be understood! Why else do you think information is so important?
You are the one creating confusion and chaos here.
When people discuss evolution in the context of "creation and evolution" they are talking about the scientific theory and about the biological history of species, not about theology, Jesus and language.
When you try to bring these topics into the discussion you are distracting from the initial topic.
That is the choice "Evolutionists" face: are you adding information to the genome, or not? Are you structuring what you translate, or not?
Here is an example where you are fundamentally wrong and confusing the discussion.
Evolution is not about individuals adding information to a genome; it is not about choices; it does not even apply to individuals at all.
Language and translations are not relevant to evolution.
So yes, to repeat my point: I am not setting out to be wrong - as if Evolution gives me the capacity to negate meaning to a greater degree and I am going for it. I daresay that there is a specific mutation that gets in the way of my being able to communicate more clearly. But the point is, that I am committed to doing Evolution consistently - I am not running from the idea, that certain aspects of my person may need to change for Evolution's sake: Evolution itself claims I am more evolved without wisdom teeth than a great many people (a fact that, for whatever reason, at least one Evolutionist has run from? I mean they literally did not want to agree that Evolution, was "Evolution").
Evolution is not a choice and is not an action taken by an individual, so being "committed to doing Evolution consistently" is not possible and does not make sense.
Being born with a mutation that led to you never developing wisdom teeth is probably an advantageous trait to have, as it means you are safe from all the dangers and infections that wisdom teeth expose you too... but the concept of being "more evolved" isn't really sensible.
Creatures aren't more evolved than one another, they are just better or worse adapted to their environment.
Regardless, being born with a particular mutation wasn't a choice and isn't an action you took.
I am not setting out to be wrong. Your whole premise is that it is impossible to be wrong, if it is gradual enough? If then I am consistently not setting out to be wrong, then me or anyone like me, will be able to adapt, with less influence from Evolution's mutations?
I don't think anyone has that as a premise.
In the context of evolution individuals do not adapt, species do.
If its impossible to go backwards, what are throwbacks?
Seriously, it is an actual phenomenon (not just cultural).
You're pulling my chain, if you think throwbacks are invisible to Evolution!
What is often referred to as a throw back is an example of ancient traits that are still present in a genome. They have never left, they've just been switched off.
Whales and snakes still have the genes for four legs and birds still have the genes for teeth and maws. Humans can even develop something of a tail.
This isn't an ancient trait that has redeveloped, it's a remnant that was never gone.
This is the thing:
If I repeatedly copy Jesus, does that make me Jesus?
No, and it isn't relevant to evolution in any way.
No? So how does repeatedly changing a genome away from something, make it change into something else?
That's what changing into something is.
In all contexts the more something changes more different from the original state.
Can you follow that logic? One question is towards an object, one question is away from an object - and both are branches of the same logic?
In other words, if it is possible to change into a human, it is possible to change into something else, but Jesus doesn't change! You can't change into Jesus and then back again!
This is once again totally irrelevant to evolution.
It does not apply to individuals and it is not a choice or a behavior of an individual.
Personal choices, religious beliefs and even spiritual transformations would all be irrelevant to evolution.
Evolution is only about statistical changes in genetic traits across populations over generations.
