I may give evolution a shot.

[lucaspa]

As Far we all know, we could all be wrong, and God might have made us another way.

If God did not make us by the processes discovered by science, then God is a liar in His Creation. God would still exist, but it wouldn't be a deity you could worship or follow.

But we do know that God said that he made us in Days, and that he blew into dust to make man, but he clearly stated that he created animals before he Got dust and blew into to make man (I may be off on lots of stuff, please correct me as I am sure I have errors)

later!

This is where you get into trouble with the Bible. You have two separate and contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. You are mixing them up without really reading the Bible.

In Genesis 1 it does say that creation took 6 days. But then it turns around in Gensis 2:4 and says creation took place in a single day(beyom in Hebrew).

In Genesis 2 it says God formed Adam from dust. But in Genesis 1:26-27 it says that God spoke men (plural) and women (plural) into existence.

It is these contradictions (and others) between the stories that let you know you are not to take them literally.

 

[Risen Tree]

Yes, I'd like to know which species you think this happens to. I can already think of a couple of ways around the "problem" if there really are any, but I don't think there are.

http://www.saverfn.org/lessonssymb.html

 

[lucaspa]

...

None of these are a problem.

Let me go thru a couple to demonstrate.

"Capuchin monkeys lap nectar from flowers in trees as part of their varied diet. In the process they get pollen on their faces and pollinate the flowers."

The ancestors of the capuchins did not have to lap nectar. In fact, I bet that nectar is not their only diet today. Nor do the flowers have the monkeys as their only pollinators. I'm sure birds and insects also lap the nectar and spread the pollen.

See, here is the capuchin's varied diet http://www.primatecare.com/adiet.htm

"The Brazil nut is an important source of food for the agouti. The agouti bits open the tough outer shell and eats the nuts inside. Sometimes it buries some of the seeds for later use, and forgets where they all are, so some will have the chance to germinate. Without the gnawing of the agouti, the Brazil nut would be unable to germinate through the extremely hard shell. "

The ancestor of the Brazil tree did not have such thick or hard shells. The seeds could germinate. When the agouti evolved and began eating the nuts, those trees with thicker shelled nuts had the nuts survive and had offspring. But still the nuts could germinate. Now you have an arms race between the agouti and the trees. The agouti getting better at eating thru shells and the trees making thicker shelled nuts. The arms race has progressed to the point that the trees would go extinct because the shells are so thick the nuts can't germinate. But the agouti buries some of the seeds but forgets where they are. There is no mandate that the trees have to survive. They could go extinct. In which case the agouti eats the nuts of other trees or it also goes extinct.

"Gongora orchids produce no nectar, but they still perform a service for the bees they manage to attract. They produce a strong scent to which the euglossine, or carpenter, bees come. The bees receive no nectar in return for their pollination services, but the scent which they pick up is essential to their own breeding process. The highly scented males gather together and fly in a swarm, which attracts females for mating."

This is co-evolution. First, the orchids attract bees to serve as pollinators. That's good for the orchid. But if the bees don't get food, they become extinct. However, some female bees had the variation that was attracted to the scent of the orchid. Thus, bees getting tricked by the orchid now have an advantage in attracting mates. Originally, this was not essential. But since they did have an advantage, over many generations the males with the scent got to breed more because they were more sure of attracting a female. Now the scent is "essential" to the bees, but it didn't start out that way.

The remaining items seem to be variations on these evolutionary explanations. if you find one that you don't think the explanation works on, let me know.

 

[Risen Tree]

"Capuchin monkeys lap nectar from flowers in trees as part of their varied diet. In the process they get pollen on their faces and pollinate the flowers."

The ancestors of the capuchins did not have to lap nectar. In fact, I bet that nectar is not their only diet today. Nor do the flowers have the monkeys as their only pollinators. I'm sure birds and insects also lap the nectar and spread the pollen.

See, here is the capuchin's varied diet http://www.primatecare.com/adiet.htm

OK, so the monkey can eat without the flowers, but can the flowers pollinate without the monkeys?

"The Brazil nut is an important source of food for the agouti. The agouti bits open the tough outer shell and eats the nuts inside. Sometimes it buries some of the seeds for later use, and forgets where they all are, so some will have the chance to germinate. Without the gnawing of the agouti, the Brazil nut would be unable to germinate through the extremely hard shell. "

The ancestor of the Brazil tree did not have such thick or hard shells. The seeds could germinate. When the agouti evolved and began eating the nuts, those trees with thicker shelled nuts had the nuts survive and had offspring. But still the nuts could germinate. Now you have an arms race between the agouti and the trees. The agouti getting better at eating thru shells and the trees making thicker shelled nuts. The arms race has progressed to the point that the trees would go extinct because the shells are so thick the nuts can't germinate. But the agouti buries some of the seeds but forgets where they are. There is no mandate that the trees have to survive. They could go extinct. In which case the agouti eats the nuts of other trees or it also goes extinct.

Hmm, that doesn't sound like a symbiotic system....

"Gongora orchids produce no nectar, but they still perform a service for the bees they manage to attract. They produce a strong scent to which the euglossine, or carpenter, bees come. The bees receive no nectar in return for their pollination services, but the scent which they pick up is essential to their own breeding process. The highly scented males gather together and fly in a swarm, which attracts females for mating."

This is co-evolution. First, the orchids attract bees to serve as pollinators. That's good for the orchid. But if the bees don't get food, they become extinct. However, some female bees had the variation that was attracted to the scent of the orchid. Thus, bees getting tricked by the orchid now have an advantage in attracting mates. Originally, this was not essential. But since they did have an advantage, over many generations the males with the scent got to breed more because they were more sure of attracting a female. Now the scent is "essential" to the bees, but it didn't start out that way.

Again, what does the flower get out of this? So much for my knowledge on what evolution is; it looks like I don't even know what a symbiotic relationship is.

The remaining items seem to be variations on these evolutionary explanations. if you find one that you don't think the explanation works on, let me know.

This, perhaps:

The calvaria tree on the island of Madagascar mysteriously failed to produce new saplings for so long that the trees were all at least 300 years old. After much lab research, scientists realized that the seeds needed to pass through the digestive tract of the dodo bird in order to germinate; hence, no seeds had germinated since the dodo went extinct. Turkeys were imported to perform the service, and the tree species was saved.

 

[Lonnie]

Well, I think we all know what the definition of Day is. If not, then look it up. Lol

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html#top

That is just genisus chapter 1.
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. "

"And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. "

"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

" And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. "


"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: "

All of these quote are from genisis chapter 1. It clearly states what a day is, "to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"



It clearly states what a day is in the same chapter. So why think he means a differnt amount of time? When he clearly states what a day is.
Does this mean evolution is wrong? I would not say so, just has errors.
Do I believe evolution is wrong? Yes!

"If God did not make us by the processes discovered by science, then God is a liar in His Creation. God would still exist, but it wouldn't be a deity you could worship or follow." The process of discoverery does not contradict creationism. But as you can see from above, the bible rather shows that evolution had to happen very quickly.

Also, so many of you evolutionists keep saying that evolution happens so slowly that there is little proof of it. Then why believe it? Sorry, dont try to argue with me, you know what Im talking about, many of you say something simular to it. And to deny what I just claimed, is to deny what some of your fellow believers say, then that would be contradicting eachother.

 

[lucaspa]

OK, so the monkey can eat without the flowers, but can the flowers pollinate without the monkeys?

Since the exact species of flowers aren't named, we aren't sure. But they probably can. After all, many insects eat nectar, and the rain forest is full of insects.

Hmm, that doesn't sound like a symbiotic system..

It's not, really. It's an arms race that has gotten out of hand. The aguoti doesn't depend on the tree that makes the Brazil nut. It can eat other nuts and fruits.
..

Again, what does the flower get out of this? So much for my knowledge on what evolution is; it looks like I don't even know what a symbiotic relationship is.

The orchid gets pollination. And does it on the cheap. Doesn't even have to make nectar for it. I think you know what symbiosis is. I think the site labeled some interconnections as symbiosis that aren't. Well, mislabeled a LOT of them.

This, perhaps:The calvaria tree on the island of Madagascar mysteriously failed to produce new saplings for so long that the trees were all at least 300 years old. After much lab research, scientists realized that the seeds needed to pass through the digestive tract of the dodo bird in order to germinate; hence, no seeds had germinated since the dodo went extinct. Turkeys were imported to perform the service, and the tree species was saved.

This is another arms race gone too far. It's like the agouti and Brazil nut. The dodos ate the seeds and digested them. In defence, those trees that had a thicker shell or whatever to resist the disgestive juices are the ones that were able to produce offspring. I suspect that the digestive juices got thru the outer shell but didn't harm the seed. This provides some nutrients for the dodo. The arms race of thicker shell and digestive juices went on so long that eventually the shell was so thick that the seed couldn't germinate unless most of the shell was digested. Then the dodo went extinct becaues of a new predator -- humans. Now the calvaria tree was stuck. It too was headed for extinction. Fortunately, humans had caused the original crisis and now stepped in with a solution -- another bird whose digestive juices would eat away the shell enough for the seed to be able to germinate.

Again, this isn't symbiosis. The dodo could eat other nuts. But the calvaria tree now depended on its seeds passing thru the digestive tract of a bird. If there had been other birds on Madagascarthat ate the nuts, it would have been fine. But there was only the dodo.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, I think we all know what the definition of Day is.

If that is so, then what do you do with Gensis 2:4?
"These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen002.html

It clearly states what a day is in the same chapter. So why think he means a differnt amount of time?

Then why would you think Genesis 2:4 means anything other than a standard day? It can't mean 6 days, can it?

Does this mean evolution is wrong? I would not say so, just has errors.
Do I believe evolution is wrong? Yes!

Then you also have to believe the Bible is wrong. Which means you just destroyed your reason to think evolution is wrong.

"If God did not make us by the processes discovered by science, then God is a liar in His Creation. God would still exist, but it wouldn't be a deity you could worship or follow." The process of discoverery does not contradict creationism. But as you can see from above, the bible rather shows that evolution had to happen very quickly.

That's the whole problem creationism has. Evolution does indeed contradict creationism. Humans were not spoken into existence nor formed from dust. They evolved from earlier species.

"the bible" shows nothing about evolution. Let's remember that it is your literal interpretation that "shows this". But your literal interpretation also shows that the Bible contradicts itself about creation. What does this mean? The literal interpretation is contradicted by both God in His Creation and by the Bible. I submit that the literal interpretation is in trouble and wrong, not evolution.

Also, so many of you evolutionists keep saying that evolution happens so slowly that there is little proof of it. Then why believe it?

Because there is a lot of evidence for it. While evolution often happens slower than can be observed in a lifetime, the process does leave evidence we can study today. Remember, the present is the way it is because the past is the way it was. Living organisms are the way they are because evolution happened in the past. If they were specially created in the recent past, they would be different.

And to deny what I just claimed, is to deny what some of your fellow believers say, then that would be contradicting eachother.

So what if we contradict each other? We are looking for truth, not total agreement with everything everyone says about evolution.

And, to set the record straight, no one believes evolution, anymore than you believe gravity or Cell Theory. You accept the data and that evolution is (provisionally) true. "Belief" is the wrong word to use when discussing scientific theories.

 

[Risen Tree]

Since the exact species of flowers aren't named, we aren't sure. But they probably can. After all, many insects eat nectar, and the rain forest is full of insects.

According to this website, the monkey eats 24 species of flowers.

Perhaps the pollination of these flowers is simply enhanced by the monkeys instead of being solely dependent upon it?

It's not, really. It's an arms race that has gotten out of hand. The aguoti doesn't depend on the tree that makes the Brazil nut. It can eat other nuts and fruits.

Yeah, that makes sense.

The orchid gets pollination. And does it on the cheap. Doesn't even have to make nectar for it. I think you know what symbiosis is. I think the site labeled some interconnections as symbiosis that aren't. Well, mislabeled a LOT of them.

Thanks for the props. I think I need to find a new site.

This is another arms race gone too far. It's like the agouti and Brazil nut. The dodos ate the seeds and digested them. In defence, those trees that had a thicker shell or whatever to resist the disgestive juices are the ones that were able to produce offspring. I suspect that the digestive juices got thru the outer shell but didn't harm the seed. This provides some nutrients for the dodo. The arms race of thicker shell and digestive juices went on so long that eventually the shell was so thick that the seed couldn't germinate unless most of the shell was digested. Then the dodo went extinct becaues of a new predator -- humans. Now the calvaria tree was stuck. It too was headed for extinction. Fortunately, humans had caused the original crisis and now stepped in with a solution -- another bird whose digestive juices would eat away the shell enough for the seed to be able to germinate.

Again, this isn't symbiosis. The dodo could eat other nuts. But the calvaria tree now depended on its seeds passing thru the digestive tract of a bird. If there had been other birds on Madagascarthat ate the nuts, it would have been fine. But there was only the dodo.

OK that's strike three for that website. Here's a good site I found on mutualism:

http://trc.ucdavis.edu/catoft/EVE101/Lec9mut.htm

These are the types of mutualisms that I am wondering about:

Specialist: Only 1 or a few species can participate in this particular interaction. Examples of species-specific (or one-on-one interactions) include the yucca moth and the yucca, fig wasp and the fig pollination systems, and generally speaking the gut symbiotes.

Let's just discuss these three systems, for it is these specialist mutualisms that I am wondering about.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Can I pop in with another one that's often raised, because I know a little about it as an aquarist - clownfish and anenomes.

This is sometimes presented as a classic symbiosis - clownfish gets protection from predators because of the anenome's poisonous tentacles (which it is immune to), the anenome gets to pick up scraps of food from the clownfish's meals, although the exact benefit to the anenome is a matter of debate.

But this is a relationship in the process of evolving. Both fish and anenomes can live without each other. It demonstrates the sort of half-way house that can exist between independence and obligate symbiosis.

 

[seebs]

NEMO!

 

[Just]

Lonnie,
This is a brief explaination of evolution.

1) Mutation occurs - That is, as lucaspa says around 1-5 per person. (these can be negative - so that the organism dies prematurely, neutral - so that the organism lives normally under the current condition or positive - so that organism reproduces more so than others of the same species (for example a larger and stronger male mammal who can out compete for females and therefore reproduce more so than a smaller sized male).

2) Environmental change occurs - That could be Biotic (eg. introduction of a disease to the area) or abiotic (eg. lower mean temperature)

3) Change in environmental effects causes Selection Pressures (for desirable characteristics in the new environment. for example, the neutral mutation of resistance to a new disease. (in the old environment this was a neutral mutation, it is now positive because of change in conditions) or for the climate example: slightly more hair - which could also be favoured by selection pressures in the new conditions.

4) The organisms not favoured by the selection pressures don't reproduce as frequently as the ones who do.

5) thus over generations (number of generation depends on the change in conditions, ie. a new disease may kill all those not resistant to it, meaning the frequency of the resistance will be 100% - while a slow lowering in temperature will take effect over many generations), the species will be altered to have a new ability - eg. 100% resistance to a disease or lots more hair.

This is basically what I had to describe in my biology exam so.................. Do biology!

 

[lucaspa]

According to this website, the monkey eats 24 species of flowers.

Perhaps the pollination of these flowers is simply enhanced by the monkeys instead of being solely dependent upon it?

That's what I'm saying.

Here's a good site I found on mutualism:

http://trc.ucdavis.edu/catoft/EVE101/Lec9mut.htm

These are the types of mutualisms that I am wondering about_:
Specialist: Only 1 or a few species can participate in this particular interaction. Examples of species-specific (or one-on-one interactions) include the yucca moth and the yucca, fig wasp and the fig pollination systems, and generally speaking the gut symbiotes.
Let's just discuss these three systems, for it is these specialist mutualisms that I am wondering about.

OK. Now, these 3 examples don't fit your criteria of species evolving millions of years apart, do they?

Now, the key to understanding the evolution of mutualism comes from this quote from your site:
"Most people think of mutualisms as being happy, peaceful, Garden-of-Eden arrangements. They rarely are. Usually there is a cost for one or both species, and often a very fine line between mutualism and parasitism or mutualism and competition. "

So, you start of the relationship with parasitism or competition and it slowly evolves to mutualism.

BTW, the former website's examples were of facultive mutualisms:
"Facultative: This is "take it or leave it" for one or both partners. While the organism benefits when the mutualism is present, it can still survive and reproduce without it. Examples include many ant mutualisms, such as ants protecting plants from predation or ants tending aphids."

The fig and fig wasp evolution has been studied extensively. Here is just two sites: http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/journal/32/ss_3.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030428082254.htm

The relationship is co-evolution. The species evolved together. Same with the yucca and yucca moth.

The evolution of gut symbiotes is another example of co-evolution.
http://shum.huji.ac.il/~por/icz_xviii/symbiology.html

Any questions?

 

[shenzhou]

Can you name 3 good mutations? Please be specific! Later

Here goes,

Interesting examples of beneficial mutations are those altering visual pigments. For example ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid substituition (1) and independantly in 9 other lineages by various mutations (2). Natural selection has also acted to fix useful variants of the visual pigment rhodopsin in Lake Victoria cichlids (3,4).

Other examples of beneficial mutations include those that give rise to new genes, a well studies example is the SDIC gene is Drosophila melanogaster. This genes was formed by a duplication of two genes (a mutation) and then deletions fused them together to form a new gene (mutations) and then further mutations led to the gene we see today (5). This gene was then fixed in the population by natural selection (6) proving its beneficial nature.

Another example of a new gene is antifreeze gene in Antarctic fish, this genes was formed by duplication and then further mutation of a trypsinogen gene (7). Positive Darwinian selection has also been found to act on antifreeze proteins (8).


(1) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20;97(13):7366-71.Ultraviolet pigments in birds evolved from violet pigments by a single amino acid change. Yokoyama S, Radlwimmer FB, Blow NS.
(2) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 8;100(14):8308-13. Epub 2003 Jun 24. Molecular analysis of the evolutionary significance of ultraviolet vision in vertebrates.Shi Y, Yokoyama S.
(3) Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1807-11. Natural selection of the rhodopsin gene during the adaptive radiation of East African Great Lakes cichlid fishes. Sugawara T, Terai Y, Okada N.
(4) Terai Y, Mayer WE, Klein J, Tichy H, Okada N. The effect of selection on a long wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin gene of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Nov 26;99,24,:15501-6. Epub 2002 Nov 15.
(5) Genetica. 2003 Jul;118(2-3):233-44. Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme. Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D.
(6) Science. 2001 Jan 5;291(5501):128-30. Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster. Nurminsky D, Aguiar DD, Bustamante CD, Hartl DL.
(7) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Apr 15;94(8):3811-6.Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish. Chen L, DeVries AL, Cheng CH.
(8) J Mol Evol. 2002 Mar;54(3):403-10. Positive darwinian selection promotes heterogeneity among members of the antifreeze protein multigene family. Swanson WJ, Aquadro CF.

 

[Lonnie]

Hmm... Lucaspa, I would like to discuss more about Genisis chapter one. Is there already a discussion about it? If so I would realy like to join in with it too!

Thanks,

Ill post later today,

Later

 

[Lonnie]

Hehehe, we are all so wonderfully created, that we can discuss this. But mabey we are to good at it. Cause we all have a come back. Lol. There is always some thing to counter what some one said. It just may take time. Like what lucaspa said to me.

Ill be back later...

See ya

 

[lucaspa]

Hmm... Lucaspa, I would like to discuss more about Genisis chapter one. Is there already a discussion about it? If so I would realy like to join in with it too!

Thanks,

Ill post later today,

Later

Genesis 1-3 gets discussed in about half the threads! If you want to concentrate on it here, perhaps you should start a new thread.

Sometimes there is no comeback. That's how people get convinced and change their minds.

However, what you are implying is that this is a debate with move and countermove. Maybe some people here do things that way, but I don't. Debate is a terrible way to arrive at truth. Debate is a sport and all you decide is who is the better debator.

What you call "countermoves" is when I have seen the argument or statement, tested it, and falsified it. All on my personal search for truth. The object wasn't to come up with a "countermove", but simply test the argument to see if it stood up. If it did, all well and good. If it didn't, then too bad.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 doesn't stand testing either within the text or with Creation. Now, having been convinced that a literal interpretation of Genesis was wrong, the next question that hit me was: "Does this mean God didn't create or doesn't exist?" I've looked at those questions critically and decided "No!" It is perfectly possible and within Christian theology for God to create by evolution. And the theological messages of Genesis 1-3 work just as well in evolution as they did in the Babylonian science in which they were set.

 

[Risen Tree]

That's what I'm saying.


OK. Now, these 3 examples don't fit your criteria of species evolving millions of years apart, do they?

Now, the key to understanding the evolution of mutualism comes from this quote from your site:
"Most people think of mutualisms as being happy, peaceful, Garden-of-Eden arrangements. They rarely are. Usually there is a cost for one or both species, and often a very fine line between mutualism and parasitism or mutualism and competition. "

So, you start of the relationship with parasitism or competition and it slowly evolves to mutualism.

So basically what happens is the two species increase their survivability odds when they depend on each other, so via natural selection the codependency of the two species increases?

BTW, the former website's examples were of facultive mutualisms:
"Facultative: This is "take it or leave it" for one or both partners. While the organism benefits when the mutualism is present, it can still survive and reproduce without it. Examples include many ant mutualisms, such as ants protecting plants from predation or ants tending aphids."

The fig and fig wasp evolution has been studied extensively. Here is just two sites: http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/journal/32/ss_3.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030428082254.htm

The relationship is co-evolution. The species evolved together. Same with the yucca and yucca moth.

The evolution of gut symbiotes is another example of co-evolution.
http://shum.huji.ac.il/~por/icz_xviii/symbiology.html

Any questions?

Interesting. I must do some research on this coevolution phenomenon.

 

[ForeRunner]

So basically what happens is the two species increase their survivability odds when they depend on each other, so via natural selection the codependency of the two species increases?

I'd say that is pretty good and simple way of saying it. So, yes!

 

[napajohn]

If God did not make us by the processes discovered by science, then God is a liar in His Creation. God would still exist, but it wouldn't be a deity you could worship or follow.
This is where you get into trouble with the Bible. You have two separate and contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. You are mixing them up without really reading the Bible.

Lucaspa..you are really grasping here...first of all evolution counters against
what Genesis said about creation...I'm not going to change evolution which is your belief please don't go in here and try to change my belief about Genesis..hers a quote for you:

"In order for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory it must be supported by observations that are repeatably observable and the theory must, in principle, be falsifiable. That is, there must be some way to demonstrate that the theory is false if indeed it is false. Neither creation nor evolution fulfils the criteria of a scientific theory. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or to the origin of a single living thing. These events occurred in the unobservable past and are not repeatable in the present. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence."
thats all lucaspa..you can get all your studies here to prove all you want that species are being recreated and so on because first though it seems promising and may give some validity to the claims of evolution, each has to be studied and given out in detail..often studies cited here are conclusions of an experiment..one cited a cichlid population from 4000 years shows that no cichlid lived in a specific lake..pray tell, how can you control an experiment
that has its original basis 4000 years ago..again remember coelacanth was supposed to be an index fossil based on the same scientific principles that were employed..until the fish was caught it was a given to assume that it was proof of fish to amphibian transition..for the longest time scientists did not believe a platypus existed and when they saw it thought it was a semi-duck,reptile, mammal..my point is that the record evolutionists have in claiming it to be truth but having a history of fabrication (piltdown hoax, Haeckels drawings) or modifying the theory to account for the lack of transitional fossils (like Gould)..it is not beyond reasonable doubt that many in the scientific world are having doubts in the present evolutionary theory...
Lucaspa, you state that evolution is fact (at least I infer it)..however fact is Knowledge or information based on real occurrences..2+2=4 is fact..I know of no mathematician who will sate his credibilty or reputation and question this..yet there are many scientists christians and nonchristians who don't see evolution as fact and are willing to stake their reputation and careers on it...

 

[Mike Flynn]

Lucaspa..you are really grasping here...first of all evolution counters against
what Genesis said about creation...I'm not going to change evolution which is your belief please don't go in here and try to change my belief about Genesis..

napajohn, by claiming that 'evolution counters against what Genesis said about creation', and wording it as fact; it is you who are challenging lucaspa's beliefs...not the other way round.

Genesis can be interpreted in other ways other than the literal interpretation. If it bothers you to hear it then you shoulnd't be posting on a forum like this. You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe about Genesis, but don't claim that your interpretation is the only correct one. If you do, then you should expect people like lucaspa to challenge it.