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.
Not at all. It's backed by evidence in any number of sciences, from genetics to geology. I have a question for you. Is homo habilus a man or an ape? You should know that the genus homo does refer to man. But what is your own personal opinion after reading up on the species?As a Christian, I believe in micro-evolution. It's observable and based on the scientific method. That being said, I completely disagree with Darwnist (macro) evolution. It's based on guesses and suppositions.
. . . . You don't have to buy into it. These guys are full of smoky mirrors. Microevolution is provable, verifiable and testable. That is a given. Macroevolution is faith based. Calling it a theory is really a stretch. The only reason it has the respect it does is because Macroevolution piggy backs onto provable, verifiable microevolution. They conveniently "extrapolate" micro to macro and say..."It's all the same thing" Well I call them on it. No.... it isn't. There is no proof of crossing kinds anywhere. Sure, they say they found the "missing link" and the "new missing link". and lets just rename this "missing link" because we want the credit for it, but there are sooo many "missing links" that should be there that are not there, not to mention the process to even "get there" is missing too.
I watched one TV programme about evolution and the evolutionist said we evolved from a sand worm no bigger than our thumbnail. I watched another one where David Attenborough said we all evolved from a fish.
I question whether your memory of these programmes is complete and accurate.
David Attenborough also said, “[This baby’s] ancestry like that of all of us stretches back over 500 million years to a tiny little worm-like creature swimming in the bottom of the sea.”
Hurd wrote: “We can go back as far as you like. Bacteria have the most primitive form of rhodopsin. Ours is derived from over a billion years of evolution. All forms of visual pigments ultimately originated with bacteria.
All vertebrates descend from a neo-chordate. It would have generally fit the description of "a tiny little worm-like creature swimming in the bottom of the sea.”
The extreme traditionalists are dragged into accepting science one baby step at a time. they have gone from denying the rotation of the earth to accepting the rotation of the earth. They are gone from denying all evolution to accepting what they call "micro" evolution. Just a few more generations and they'll be accepting evolution as well.
Look at religion.
Science books are reprinted and updated every couple of years. When's the last time a religion got revised in the same way based on actual new data?
Science changes constantly. Religion changes, like... never. AT best, it changes some "interpretation", but still hangs on to its basic dogmatic premises and doctrines.
Microevolution (adaption).What are teachers supposed to teach in a biology class?
Then make it make sense.JonFromMinnesota said:Biology makes no sense without the theory of evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems. The Earth is not an isolated system. It receives energy from the sun. Can I ask why you still go to this argument even though it's been shown to you on several occasions why it doesn't apply?
Before new drugs are approved for human trials, they are tested on rats. Using the theory of evolution, we know we share a common ancestor with rats. This can be seen in the genomes, which are 85% similar. Rats suffer from similar diseases as we do. This is because we share the same basic physiology and similar organs. Our nervous system works in the same way and react similarly to infection and injuries.
But don't 10 out of 10 atheists recommend evolution?Evolution does not concern itself, with atheism or theism.
But it ISN"T completely different. That's the point.Conversely, their DNA is equally as complicated as human DNA and also completely unique and different.
Namely that evolutionists would rather entertain goo, an alien egg, a big bang theory.
entertaining the idea that there is intelligent design in everything around us. In DNA, in plants, in animals, in humans, etc. The more we learn about our surroundings, the more complicated we find it really is and it becomes harder and harder to believe that non-intelligence or matter simply composed everything and pieced everything together randomly.
The fact remains that evolution cannot be replicated in a laboratory and it's because of these aforementioned reasons...and logic for that matter.
Finally, when did evolution become fact?
Additionally, the reason for the zealousness of those like Richard Dawkins is because evolutionists/non-believers need to believe there is no God.
With no God, who then can stand in the way of what you think is right or wrong?
Who is God to tell you what is right or wrong? Am I right? So to answer your question, the overzealous belief in the Theory of evolution has to be dogmatic.
But again, mutations are factually destructive. They're not PRODUCTIVE.
In fact, 99.99% of mutations are destructive (I can't say 100% because that's just not science).
The answer is God never intended for animals to kill each other or for any death to happen when He created the world in Genesis.
Let me guess?... once the Disney movie about Charles Darwin comes out in a couple of years.
I'm saying that people don't choose evolution because it supports their theism or atheism. They accept it because the evidence supports it.Evolution can't support both atheism and theistic evolution?
Evidence supported Thalidomide as a prenatal wonder drug.They accept it because the evidence supports it.
Tell me whether homo habilus is a man or an ape.The only reason it has the respect it does is because Macroevolution piggy backs onto provable, verifiable microevolution.
Is it still a fish when it also has lungs that breath air, and has legs that it walks around on and can climb trees? Or is that something in the middle of becoming something else?a fish is still a fish
Plus it's shoved down our throats in the schools and the media. Oh yes, an lest I forget, the creative editing" going on in our society currently.I'm saying that people don't choose evolution because it supports their theism or atheism. They accept it because the evidence supports it.
And where do these numbers come from? And please don't just say science. How was this measurable? Which textbook or Popular Science Magazine was this quoted from? I'd really be impressed that a scientist would be able to empirically and unquestionably arrive at the conclusion that there were, in fact, variations in oxygen levels on earth! And how could they arrive at the fact it was 300 million years ago?
...
I'm talking about the Earth as we know it today and as it is and has been in order to sustain life since the beginning. So please, enlighten me. Where did this tidbit of information come from? How do we know it got as high as 35% and as little as 15%?
Namely that evolutionists would rather entertain goo, an alien egg, a big bang theory, or something else other than entertaining the idea that there is intelligent design in everything around us.
Finally, when did evolution become fact?
So to answer your question, the overzealous belief in the Theory of evolution has to be dogmatic.
In fact, 99.99% of mutations are destructive (I can't say 100% because that's just not science).
The proportion of mutations that are advantageous, effectively neutral and deleterious varies between species, and the DFE differs between coding and non-coding DNA. Despite these differences between species and genomic regions, some general principles have emerged: advantageous mutations are rare, and those that are strongly selected are exponentially distributed; and the DFE of deleterious mutations is complex and multi-modal.
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?