Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Proof of Evolution?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fencerguy" data-source="post: 57452670" data-attributes="member: 283519"><p>I'm not saying that God <em>couldn't</em> have started with a single organism, but from my standpoint (using the Bible as an authoritative historical/theological text), He simply <em>didn't.</em> The Bible says that God created the organisms that fly in the air, and swim in water, and walk on land, and that He gave them instructions (instincts? genetic instructions?) to reproduce after their kinds......so for me, I don't see the single ancestor hypothesis as holding water, and will need to see a LOT of data that confirm it beyond refutation...</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>not necessarily, the mutations are just that, mutations, they do not necessarily get passed on through the gametes.....They can, but that is not set in stone....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>But the progression that is seen in the fossil record involves additions of DNA that are larger and more complex than mutations (alone, as the mechanism) cannot physically account for....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Because such large mutations (even ones that are beneficial on a small scale) would be much more likely to have a harmful affect on the organism.....Which is why no one can provide me with fossil evidence of a truly transitional organism (i.e. a terrestrial organism with three legs and one lobe-like fin).....If the mutations become too large, the organism is less likely to be able to function properly.....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Then there are several people on here that need to get their stories straight, because I have had several of them tell me that even a small mutation can lead to large phenotypic changes....which is possible, but it seems like we both think that that is not how the evolutionary process works...</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>But there are not that many types of beneficial mutations that actually <em>add</em> DNA to the genome......That would involve the evolution of wholly new <em>genes,</em> which seems too complicated for random chance, or even an infinite amount of time....</p><p> </p><p></p><p>It depends on your definition of large.....because a homeostatic change or dietetic change is not "large" in my mind when evolutionists are saying that the bacteria became eukaryotic, and then multicellular, and then started developing other multicellular structures.....These seem much larger than the ability to adapt to a new food source....The data is still lacking for these "large" changes...</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The keyword here being "superficially"</p><p>Are you assuming then that the changes in lineage that we actually see (speciation, adaptation, microevolution) naturally follow into changes that there is not explicit data for (simple to complex organism, addition of wholly new genes, etc)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fencerguy, post: 57452670, member: 283519"] I'm not saying that God [I]couldn't[/I] have started with a single organism, but from my standpoint (using the Bible as an authoritative historical/theological text), He simply [I]didn't.[/I] The Bible says that God created the organisms that fly in the air, and swim in water, and walk on land, and that He gave them instructions (instincts? genetic instructions?) to reproduce after their kinds......so for me, I don't see the single ancestor hypothesis as holding water, and will need to see a LOT of data that confirm it beyond refutation... not necessarily, the mutations are just that, mutations, they do not necessarily get passed on through the gametes.....They can, but that is not set in stone.... But the progression that is seen in the fossil record involves additions of DNA that are larger and more complex than mutations (alone, as the mechanism) cannot physically account for.... Because such large mutations (even ones that are beneficial on a small scale) would be much more likely to have a harmful affect on the organism.....Which is why no one can provide me with fossil evidence of a truly transitional organism (i.e. a terrestrial organism with three legs and one lobe-like fin).....If the mutations become too large, the organism is less likely to be able to function properly..... Then there are several people on here that need to get their stories straight, because I have had several of them tell me that even a small mutation can lead to large phenotypic changes....which is possible, but it seems like we both think that that is not how the evolutionary process works... But there are not that many types of beneficial mutations that actually [I]add[/I] DNA to the genome......That would involve the evolution of wholly new [I]genes,[/I] which seems too complicated for random chance, or even an infinite amount of time.... It depends on your definition of large.....because a homeostatic change or dietetic change is not "large" in my mind when evolutionists are saying that the bacteria became eukaryotic, and then multicellular, and then started developing other multicellular structures.....These seem much larger than the ability to adapt to a new food source....The data is still lacking for these "large" changes... The keyword here being "superficially" Are you assuming then that the changes in lineage that we actually see (speciation, adaptation, microevolution) naturally follow into changes that there is not explicit data for (simple to complex organism, addition of wholly new genes, etc) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Proof of Evolution?
Top
Bottom