I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

[LoricaLady]

Now, I did put the word "Bible" in quotation marks. I feel sure you understood why I did that, and that I was not speaking literally. You call the book a "crude attempt." And yet it is held up for college students to buy and believe all the time. I know, because I once was one such student.

I ask you the same questions I asked above. Please show how Darwin's famous finch beaks support goo through the zoo to you. After all, they are still finches.

Give me data that there is a GC, with a photo of one please. Kindly explain why "Cambrian" deep sea life forms are wrapped around mountains tops in almost mint condition when we are told they got there after millions of years of traveling through "plate tectonics."

You ask who I am. You call Darwin a scientist as if I am not worthy to comment on him. No, he had a degree in theology. As I said earlier he never used the scientific method to demonstrate any of his theoretical points. Why is it that evolution believers always say "What is your degree?" but they don't care that neither Darwin, nor Charles Lyell, the two icons of evolution, had science degrees?

My friend, the laws of science and logic are not that hard to learn. Some people want to act like only the "elite" can understand or comment on them. That is way not true. The data is out there for anyone to see who wants to research, even for a grade school janitor or a plumber or whatever. No, science is not just for the self styled "intellectual elite".

You say the combination of natural selection and mutations lead to evolution. Okay. Name a life form. Again, I do ask that it be from the trillions of examples around us, nothing from the invisible and unverifiable past. Cite data to show that the life form is evolving, and tell what combination of natural selection and mutations are leading it to evolve. I'm sure you agree, too, that changes within a species are not evolution. 100s of thousands of species of beetles are still beetles, for example.

No, I have checked out the quote on Wald and it is accurate. If you have found him saying this or that elsewhere, it does not change what he said there.

As for Gee, I'm sorry but I think I can read and analyze what he said just fine. He was NOT supporting evolution!

If what was said in 1925 is not valid, why not? The basic idea of evolutionism is the same now as then. We have data from all those life forms out there just we did then. They are evolving or they are not. What I am saying is that the data does not support evolution. That's what he was saying.
If you don't like the quotes from those secular scientists, perhaps you would like to examine those others that I referred to. The truth is, though, not all secular scientists agree that evolution is science. They just don't. But...guess what? i can research and THINK for myself. If every scientist in the world said evolution was true, I wouldn't buy it, therefore.

You know, at one time all scientists, even Einstein, thought the universe was eternal. Then with the Hubble telescope and red shift studies we found out that was not true. Before that there were people who did or did not have science degrees who were not buying it that the universe was eternal. They thought for themselves. And oh yeal, they believed the Bible instead.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to assume that anyone who took enough science courses to get a science degree is either a saint or a savant. Sometimes they are politically correct, sometimes they have not really looked outside the box, sometimes they have families to support and don't want to rock the boat. Whatever.

But give me your life form, as asked for above, please. That should be interesting.

 

[sfs]

I ask you the same questions I asked above. Please show how Darwin's famous finch beaks support goo through the zoo to you. After all, they are still finches.

They don't. Who said they do? They show how effective natural selection can be on very short time-scales.

Give me data that there is a GC, with a photo of one please. Kindly explain why "Cambrian" deep sea life forms are wrapped around mountains tops in almost mint condition when we are told they got there after millions of years of traveling through "plate tectonics."

I'm a geneticist. I'll leave the geology and the paleontology to others.

You ask who I am.

I asked if you were a scientist. I take it that you're not.

You call Darwin a scientist as if I am not worthy to comment on him.

No, I call Darwin a scientist because he was one, and I question your qualifications to judge his science, not your worthiness. You haven't given me any reason to think you are qualified to judge, or any reason to reject the overwhelming judgment of scientists that Darwin was a good scientist. For example, the judgment of the America's most highly respected scientists can be found here. Why do you think these highly trained, highly productive scientists are less able to judge Darwin's value as a scientist than you are?

Why is it that evolution believers always say "What is your degree?" but they don't care that neither Darwin, nor Charles Lyell, the two icons of evolution, had science degrees?

Since I said nothing about degrees -- who are you talking to? I don't care what somebody's degree is, or if they have one. We've got one grad student in our lab whose degree is in philosophy; that doesn't stop him from doing science. Darwin was a good scientist because he did good science. No other reason.

My friend, the laws of science and logic are not that hard to learn. Some people want to act like only the "elite" can understand or comment on them. That is way not true. The data is out there for anyone to see who wants to research, even for a grade school janitor or a plumber or whatever. No, science is not just for the self styled "intellectual elite".

If a janitor or a plumber makes well-reasoned, evidence-based argument about science, I'm all ears. That sure hasn't happened in this thread.

You say the combination of natural selection and mutations lead to evolution. Okay. Name a life form. Again, I do ask that it be from the trillions of examples around us, nothing from the invisible and unverifiable past. Cite data to show that the life form is evolving, and tell what combination of natural selection and mutations are leading it to evolve.

Homo sapiens. Off the top of my head, natural selection has caused mutations in or near the genes LCT, OCA2, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, EDAR, HBB, FADS1/2/3, and FY to increase rapidly in frequency, changing skin pigmentation, the ability metabolize fatty acids, the ability to digest lactose, sweat gland density, and resistance to falciparum and vivax malaria.

I'm sure you agree, too, that changes within a species are not evolution.

Why would I agree with a statement that's false? Evolution within a species is very much evolution. If you want to discuss science with scientists, it really helps to understand what they mean by the words they're using.

100s of thousands of species of beetles are still beetles, for example.

Um, yes. But they're not the same species of beetle, right? In fact, they're not the same genus or family, either: they're the same order. In exactly the same way, evolution has produced dozens of species of primate, but we're all still primates.

No, I have checked out the quote on Wald and it is accurate. If you have found him saying this or that elsewhere, it does not change what he said there.

So you're saying I should believe you, and not my lying eyes? The article you cited is right in front of me and that quotation isn't in there. Here's a screenshot of it on my laptop; you can see I've just searched for the word God in it. How exactly did you check out the quote? Have you read the article?

As for Gee, I'm sorry but I think I can read and analyze what he said just fine. He was NOT supporting evolution!

The reviewer that you're quoting goes on to say, "This is not an anti-evolution diatribe because cladism depends on the notion of common ancestry, and Gee admits that Darwin's theory can be applied in the modern world where we can actually see ecological relationships at work. But cladism places severe restrictions on what kind of questions can be asked about the distant past, in the cause of raising paleontology to the ranks of a hard science." Are you claiming to have read Gee's book and evaluated it independently, or do you think you have a better grasp of the book than the reviewer does, based on a short quote you read somewhere on the web?

If what was said in 1925 is not valid, why not?

Because it was said by a physicist with no training or experience with biology, and because it was before the last 90 years of scientific research, in particular research into genetics.

Why are you quoting a handful of dead scientists, rather than asking what the vast majority of scientists today think about evolution? Why aren't you listening to all of the Christian scientists -- including me -- who are convinced that evolution is a sound scientific theory? And most importantly, why is creationism such an abysmal failure at explaining and predicting genetic data? Because that's the bottom line when it comes to science, isn't it? How well does a theory work?

 

[Armoured]

Which of the 3 seperates tenants of evolution would you like to debate. 1) Natural Selection 2) Micro Evolution or 3) Macro Evolution?

Considering the last two are not "tennets of evolution "...

 

[LoricaLady]

No, Darwin was not a scientist. Again, his degree was in theology. He did some nature studies and made some observations that led him to theories which are not backed up by scientific data. He did use the scientific method in his work with pigeons but did not seem to understand that, since all he ever got were more pigeons with this and that variation, he was seeing the opposite of evolution.

You say: "Homo sapiens. Off the top of my head, natural selection has caused mutations in or near the genes LCT, OCA2, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, EDAR, HBB, FADS1/2/3, and FY to increase rapidly in frequency, changing skin pigmentation, the ability metabolize fatty acids, the ability to digest lactose, sweat gland density, and resistance to falciparum and vivax malaria."

Like Darwin you do not see that you are actually giving examples that show stasis, the opposite of evolution. The pigeons stayed pigeons. The homo sapiens have stayed homo sapiens. The mantra "Change is evolution" is being demonstrated to be the opposite of true. Or, if that is not the case, what are the pigeons "evolving" into that are not still pigeons? What are the homo sapiens "evolving" into that are not still people?

You can say "evolution within a species" is evolution, but what we see is that eagles stay eagles, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, chimpanzees stay chimpanzees, trees stay trees, peas stay peas, bees stay bees. (Mendel, a real scientist, demonstrated much of that). To have evolution you have to move up to the level beyond any genus or species within it. You have to show a new Family in the animal or plant kingdom. That is what Darwin's drawing of The Tree of Life Shows happening. That is what evolution claims has happened over and over. But that is not what we see in the world around us.

Really, by only citing finches staying finches, and homo sapiens staying homo sapiens - you are indirectly acknowledging that the theory of evolution has nothing to offer at higher levels than genus changes with the species beneath them.

You use the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy when you ask me why I believe in dead scientists. At the same time you believe in a dead "scientist", Darwin. Oh, and back to the dead scientist, Muller, who said that with mutations "you can consider them all bad". I did not see you cite a living scientist who has refuted what he said, and done extensive tests, like him, which give different data from his. But that leads right back to me asking you to name any life form where mutations can be shown to be leading to changes above the genus/species level.

As I mentioned above, evolution defenders never answer hard core questions but instead dodge them with changes of subject, or other forms of evasion, though they not uncommonly leave a plethora of words in their trail.

You did not answer any of my questions. The one I especially wanted to be addressed was the naming of a life form that can be seen to be evolving - in our time and not in the invisible and unverifiable past - into a new Family based on natural selection and mutations. I also ask that you name any mutations that led to the purported evolution. Again, there are trillions of life forms out there. If evolution is true, there should be at least one life form out there showing what I asked for. Or, did nature operate differently in the past than now? If so, what data demonstrates that?

However, you only told me about homo sapiens who are staying homo sapiens. Friend, you may paste tons of words and argue from now til dooms day, but you're never going to answer my questions because evolution is not happening. A new genus may be named and a new species of walking stick bug or bacteria or frog or gecko may be created. But every single time we will see nothing but a new kind of walking stick bug, or bacteria or frog or gecko. And that's as far as "evolution" will ever go. That's what the data shows. Real science uses real data, not theories that have no data to back them up, much less theories that conflict with hard core data.

You are not going to answer any of my questions, but I see that you like to type a lot. I only have so much time, and know how this goes. Maybe next week I will look back to see if you tried to name a life form and show me how it "evolved" with some clearly defined, and named, mutation that leads beyond the genus/species level. However, basically I need to move on. Only so much time.

Blessings and bye.

 

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: One final thing. To any other evolution defenders out there who want to debate this more with me... My feeling is that if you read my posts and don't see what I have been pointing out, then nothing else I have to say to you will "compute" either. But, I would like to offer some final data. It seems to me that if Someone can do the things documented below, in our time, that He can also create life forms, complete and fully functional from the start. Now, kindly don't read and then respond "Anecdotes." I am just real sure that if you get a doctor's report, or see your medical records, that you don't say, "Who cares? Just a bunch of anecdotes anyway!"

Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? Absolutely!
.
See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church.

. See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. The DNA in every cell of her body was changed.

.
Here is some more documented, scientific, evidence, not nearly all of it at all. See CBN's short vid Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him.

. Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead.

Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story.
.
Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth.

. The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles.
.
On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the opthamologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. . Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who created time, space, matter, energy and you - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you.
.
Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. Documentary | Jesus and the Shroud of Turin
.
The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: There is no paint on the Shroud and they have no clue how the image got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible, what NT writers report. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.
.
These miracles are not what many would call proof. But they are certainly evidence. In a court of law you generally rely on evidence, not proof, as the actual crime is historical and cannot usually be observed (unless there was a video cam.) . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out.
.
You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there.

(Oh, and as for the Shroud of Turin and anyone wanting to dispute it, to me that's like continuing on with the debate on evolution. If you don't see it, that's up to you. Maybe later, though, you will.)

 

[Speedwell]

ANYONE: One final thing. To any other evolution defenders out there who want to debate this more with me... My feeling is that if you read my posts and don't see what I have been pointing out, then nothing else I have to say to you will "compute" either.

All I "saw" was a handful of nuggets from your favorite creationist quote-mine that you threw down in front of us. That, and your underlying assumption that all who disagree with you are atheists. What are those examples of miraculous healing you just posted supposed to "prove" to a Christian? What does the Shroud of Turin have to do with evolution?

 

[LoricaLady]

Speedwell What do the miracles and the Shroud of Turn have to do with evolution? I already told you. Unlike evoution which has no data to support it, the Bible, which says all was created with the One called Jesus Christ, does have scientific data to support what it says. (And certainly far more than I have included.) But why am I even responding to you? As I also already said, if you don't see what was in my posts, nothing else I have to say to you will "compute" with you either.

Consider that I never, anywhere, said all evolution believers are atheists. If you see me saying something I did not say, and don't "get it" in what I actually did say, we are spinning our wheels here, aren't we?

That's truly all I have to say.

 

[Meowzltov]

Which of the 3 seperates tenants of evolution would you like to debate. 1) Natural Selection 2) Micro Evolution or 3) Macro Evolution?

Natural Selection can drive both Micro Evolution or Evolution (Macro Evolution).

 

[sfs]

No, Darwin was not a scientist. Again, his degree was in theology. He did some nature studies and made some observations that led him to theories which are not backed up by scientific data. He did use the scientific method in his work with pigeons but did not seem to understand that, since all he ever got were more pigeons with this and that variation, he was seeing the opposite of evolution.

I pointed you to evidence that the consensus among scientists is that Darwin was a good scientist. To counter that, all you can do is repeat your opinion.

Like Darwin you do not see that you are actually giving examples that show stasis, the opposite of evolution.

I gave you an example of a species changing genetically, which is evolution. Unless in your language "stasis" means "change", then your response makes no sense.

Really, by only citing finches staying finches, and homo sapiens staying homo sapiens - you are indirectly acknowledging that the theory of evolution has nothing to offer at higher levels than genus changes with the species beneath them.

When you ask for change that happens within a single human lifespan, you're only going to find small changes. When you ask for change at the family level within that short a time, you're revealing that you don't understand evolution. I'd be happy to tell you some of the evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, but you clearly don't want to hear it.

Oh, and back to the dead scientist, Muller, who said that with mutations "you can consider them all bad". I did not see you cite a living scientist who has refuted what he said, and done extensive tests, like him, which give different data from his.

I gave you a list of beneficial mutations -- a list that contradicts Muller, and a list that you quoted above. I'm a living scientist, and I've done extensive tests on many of these mutations, and can cite numerous papers that back up my claims. Muller's view is thoroughly out of date.

Now, I notice that you have dropped a point: the "quotation" you provided from Wald. You said that you had checked out the quotation and verified it. But the quoted words are not actually in the article that you cited. What you said was simply a falsehood. How did you check out the quotation? Does it bother you that you said something false? Don't you think you should address your mistake?

 

[LoricaLady]

I'm sorry, but you are still not answering my questions after several posts.

Whether or not the mutations you listed are truly beneficial or not is debatable, but this we know... I asked you to name a life form, and name mutations that caused it to evolve from one Family into another - in the observable world of living organisms. You gave data showing homo sapiens staying homo sapiens. As mentioned earlier we do see life forms changing, but with bees staying bees, peas staying peas, trees staying trees, chimps staying chimps and homo sapiens staying homo sapiens. You gave evidence for the truth of that fact, friend, not for evolution.

Sorry, but I do not have time to keep rehashing this and that point. In fact, after I finish this post I am going to exit out of this string. Again, there is only so much time. However, for anyone interested, I will address where you say that you can show me evidence for ape ancestry. I think one of the more common "evidences" for that would be in the Chromosome 2 debate. There we are told that because there is a fusion with Chromosome 2 in humans which gives a number match - 48 - with chimps' chromosomes, that therefore we can be sure we came from some kind of "lesser primate".

However, the Chromosome 2 argument is actually a perfect little example of how evolutionary defense is always, always, based on logical fallacies. Most people - including myself in the past - don't know logical fallacies from a hole in the ground. Thus they are easily confused.

After showing some of the logical fallacies used, below, that's all I have to say.

Other chromosome fusions do occur which are not being mentioned. For example 1 in 1,000 people, who function like others, have an addition fusion, the Robertsonian Translocation. However, no one is claiming it comes from some ape type creature. Cows and some other animals have fusions but no one says that shows they evolved from something else. Ever heard of the Cherry Picking logical fallacy?

Also, the Chromosome 2 fusion is human in every way. There is no ape type info in it. In fact, apes have chromosomes that are larger in size than those of homo sapiens. Ever heard of the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy?

We have exactly zero data - you know, what real science uses, unlike evolutionism which always presents theories as gawd's truth facts - to show when or how that fusion got there. Yet we are being told as scientific truth that we do know! Ever hear of the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy?

Okay, so if you fuse those two chromosomes together you could say there is a superficial match - in number only - with the 48 chromosomes of some "lesser primate". Uh, tobacco has 48 chromosomes, too. Ever heard of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy?

No doubt you will want to try to refute what I just said. That's fine. You can have the last word if you want it.

And that's all I feel a need to offer here. Again, blessings and bye. I will be reading no further posts here lest I be tempted to respond and waste my time and the time of others. As I told another poster, if one doesn't see what I've already said, then one is not likely to see anything else I have to say either.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

I'm sorry, but you are still not answering my questions after several posts.

Whether or not the mutations you listed are truly beneficial or not is debatable, but this we know... I asked you to name a life form, and name mutations that caused it to evolve from one Family into another - in the observable world of living organisms. You gave data showing homo sapiens staying homo sapiens. As mentioned earlier we do see life forms changing, but with bees staying bees, peas staying peas, trees staying trees, chimps staying chimps and homo sapiens staying homo sapiens. You gave evidence for the truth of that fact, friend, not for evolution.

Sorry, but I do not have time to keep rehashing this and that point. In fact, after I finish this post I am going to exit out of this string. Again, there is only so much time. However, for anyone interested, I will address where you say that you can show me evidence for ape ancestry. I think one of the more common "evidences" for that would be in the Chromosome 2 debate. There we are told that because there is a fusion with Chromosome 2 in humans which gives a number match - 48 - with chimps' chromosomes, that therefore we can be sure we came from some kind of "lesser primate".

However, the Chromosome 2 argument is actually a perfect little example of how evolutionary defense is always, always, based on logical fallacies. Most people - including myself in the past - don't know logical fallacies from a hole in the ground. Thus they are easily confused.

After showing some of the logical fallacies used, below, that's all I have to say.

Other chromosome fusions do occur which are not being mentioned. For example 1 in 1,000 people, who function like others, have an addition fusion, the Robertsonian Translocation. However, no one is claiming it comes from some ape type creature. Cows and some other animals have fusions but no one says that shows they evolved from something else. Ever heard of the Cherry Picking logical fallacy?

Also, the Chromosome 2 fusion is human in every way. There is no ape type info in it. In fact, apes have chromosomes that are larger in size than those of homo sapiens. Ever heard of the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy?

We have exactly zero data - you know, what real science uses, unlike evolutionism which always presents theories as gawd's truth facts - to show when or how that fusion got there. Yet we are being told as scientific truth that we do know! Ever hear of the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy?

Okay, so if you fuse those two chromosomes together you could say there is a superficial match - in number only - with the 48 chromosomes of some "lesser primate". Uh, tobacco has 48 chromosomes, too. Ever heard of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy?

No doubt you will want to try to refute what I just said. That's fine. You can have the last word if you want it.

And that's all I feel a need to offer here. Again, blessings and bye. I will be reading no further posts here lest I be tempted to respond and waste my time and the time of others. As I told another poster, if one doesn't see what I've already said, then one is not likely to see anything else I have to say either.

It is not possible for a life form to "evolve from one family into another". What CAN happen is a population of lifeforms (be it a species of tree, mouse, mushroom, etc.) can be split into two populations that do not or cannot mate. They undergo "change within a species", which you yourself agreed can happen, until they change so much that they cannot interbreed even if they tried. At this point, they are considered two separate species.

Unfortunately our process for classifying organisms was invented under the assumption that this doesn't happen, so we don't have a rule for how to name these two groups. Right now, one group will get to keep its old name while the other gets a new name. For example, the bonobo was considered a "subspecies" of chimpanzee (genetically distinct, but still able to interbreed) until recently scientists determined that they have speciated. The bonobo is now Pan paniscus, and the common chimpanzee remains Pan troglodytes.

As this process happens more and more, there could be five or more species that are all descended from the same population. These species are grouped into a genus. As these species split, there could be twenty or so members to the genus, so it would be bumped up to family status and then the species within the family would be grouped into geni based on their lineages.

But what is important to realize is that a bonobo is still a chimpanzee. Nobody believes that a chimpanzee should be able to become something else. All things that evolved from the population we used to call "chimpanzee" will remain chimpanzees. The bonobo, before it was considered a species, was called "the population of chimpanzees that lives south of the Congo". And now, that still holds true. The bonobo is still a type of chimpanzee that lives south of the Congo, and the common chimpanzee (formerly "the chimpanzee") is a type of chimpanzee that lives north of it. And in fact there are still four discrete populations of chimpanzee that may become separate species as well.

 

[Smidlee]

What kind of mutation can lead to a scientist that believes he is the result of evolution. Scientist in the past like Isaac Newton choose God's revelation over human reasoning but today's scientist puts their faith totally in human reasoning. They try to use Evolution is a product of human reasoning to explain away even human reasoning. Evolutionist is the belief that a few changes of DNA over time can produce this:

It's based not on evidence but the religious belief the principle of continuity.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes, the Father loves us. But many people - like my own self in the past - stop believing in Him when they buy into the pseudo science of evolutionism. Richard Dawkins attributes his atheism to belief in evolution, too.
.

Well, I suggest we STOP SAYING one has to choose between accepting evolution and believing in God and LET PEOPLE ACCEPT EVOLUTION in our churches.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Macro and micro evolution is very different. The differention is that macro evolution staes that species can create new species. Macro evolution means that fish and mammals are related even though they have completely different respiratory systems. Macro evolution means that a rosebush and a dog are related by a common ancestor. Micro evolution relates to variations and variety within a species group. It does not mean species migrate to completely new species groups. . . . .

It might be of interest to the larger community here to take note of this web site which allows one to get estimates of how long ago any two species shared a common ancestral species. How far back in time do we have to go before we find the common ancestor of yourself and your dog? Or your dog and a starfish? www.timetree.org

 

[Mercy-Me]

Well i don't agree that macro and micro evolution are different so not that lol.
What i would like to discuss is the evidence for evolution. I have provided one example of evidence. If you are willing, I would like for you to provide an explanation for that evidence from a creation perspective. That is to say a perspective wherein you hold that God created the animals in their present form at around the same time.

Micro evolution and macro evolution are exponentially different - One assumes that there is genetic variation within a kind. The other assumes that one kind can change into a completely different kind of animal given enough time. They are completely different and evidence for micro evolution is not evidence for macro evolution...

 

[Mercy-Me]

I take that rant to be an accusation of atheism--which is a reportable violation of the forum rules.

And, no, I am not going to refute your wildly inaccurate characterization of evolution. Knock down your own straw men.

what she said is 1000% right about evolutionism

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Micro evolution and macro evolution are exponentially different - One assumes that there is genetic variation within a kind. The other assumes that one kind can change into a completely different kind of animal given enough time. They are completely different and evidence for micro evolution is not evidence for macro evolution...

You know, your statement about one kind not being able to change into a completely different kind would make a lot of sense if you could come up with a biologically established consistent definition of what a "kind" is, and how the boundary between a "kind" and something else is maintained.

Are all mammals a single kind? Are all carnivores a single kind? Are all felines a single kind? How do you draw the line consistently and objectively?

 

[sfs]

Micro evolution and macro evolution are exponentially different - One assumes that there is genetic variation within a kind.

More accurately, one observes that species do in fact change genetically from generation to generation. That's microevolution.

The other assumes that one kind can change into a completely different kind of animal given enough time.

More accurately, the other observes that different species look exactly like the result of lots of microevolution; in particular, the genetic differences between species look exactly like a lot of accumulated mutations. Macroevolution tells us why this is the case, while creationism has no explanation.

 

[Mercy-Me]

You know, your statement about one kind not being able to change into a completely different kind would make a lot of sense if you could come up with a biologically established consistent definition of what a "kind" is, and how the boundary between a "kind" and something else is maintained.

Are all mammals a single kind? Are all carnivores a single kind? Are all felines a single kind? How do you draw the line consistently and objectively?

I would say the ability to produce offspring would be a kind

If you mate dogs for millions of years , you aint ever going to get a cat.... You will only get a dog. Thats what we observe throughout all of nature... There are boundaries and limits as to how far you can go in the DNA code !

 

[Mercy-Me]

More accurately, one observes that species do in fact change genetically from generation to generation. That's microevolution.

More accurately, the other observes that different species look exactly like the result of lots of microevolution; in particular, the genetic differences between species look exactly like a lot of accumulated mutations. Macroevolution tells us why this is the case, while creationism has no explanation.

Micro evolution is changes within a kind - This doesnt mean or is not evidence that one kind can completely change into another kind.. Sorry, but from what is observable and testable, it doesnt happen !