Creation Vs Evolution - Page 4
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Creation Vs Evolution

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    374
    Long live the evolution theory of life. Sorry, i don't think that
    what is written in a religous book is a record of creation. If GOD
    created us all with his magic wand, why did he stop at humans??
    We are all organisms from eons ago that have evolved into what
    we are today. Ask an entomologist his/her opinion of evolution
    and how insects have evolved to adapt to their environment and
    how evolution itself has weeded out the weaker species, regardless
    of his/her faith. All life form was never made by GOD, enviromental
    conditions, food supply, and most importantly "evolution" is the great
    creater of life. just my opinion.

    Edit:
    The Ape-Man Similarity is A Fabrication
    I don't know how you can poossibly say this, how many humans have you
    seen that resemble apes???? I sure as hell have seen a few, the similarities
    are too obvious to ignore.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by cheyenne1212
    Supposedly we are suppose to evolve right? we are suppose to become stronger, better, faster, and more sutitable to our enviroment. However, why is it that we have never seen evidence of evolution? I mean sure we saw some bones hear and there, but what does that prove? Evolution is pretty much based on one mans idea and thats it. Evolution cannot be proved by science.
    we have seen evadence, look at he new bacteria that is imune to antibiotics, look at the people who are amune to aids. Hell compare a bed from 200 years ago to a bed from today, humans are signifigantly taller now...evolution is a very slow process but it is allways happening.

    Agent_Steal: you didn't bother to read the link did you, I will help out with the thermodynamics bit
    The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says heat won't spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, or equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system won't decrease. This doesn't prevent increasing order because
    the earth isn't a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy which accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. [Aranda-Espinoza et al, 1999; Kestenbaum, 1998] Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size [Han & Craighead, 2000].
    even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they're offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.


    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so obviously no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution [Demetrius, 2000]. Some people see the evolutionary increase in diversity and the origin of life as entropy-driven [McShea, 1998; Schneider and Kay, 1994].


    Creationists themselves admit increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.


    Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
    References:
    Aranda-Espinoza et al., 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
    Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
    Han, J. & Craighead, H.G., 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
    Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/links/doi...jtbi.2000.2106
    McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
    Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/..._as/lifeas.pdf



    This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems by quibbling with the verbiage "left to themselves." The simple fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.


    That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue. Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered. How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims which they themselves can plainly see are false?


    Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder (although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics). There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word.
    As for your difrences between man and aniaml, well lets see chimps do make tools, they do comunicate, they do understand language and form abstact concepts....we have vocal cords taht can form more sounds then theirs can and our brain is a littel bigger besides that their is no difrence. In fact a chimp baby is ahead of a human baby untill around the age of four in comunication, locamotion and abstract reasoning.


    I relise that I will never open the mind of a fundy like you, my only hope is that I can stop your ignorance and FUD from croupting others, we have a right to search out how the universe works, just because it dosn't jive with your literal interpratation of a meteforic story dosn't mean its not true.

    As for the rest of you creationists, I hope none of you are catholic, for if you are you are bordering on harasey as the pope has said that evolution is how man was created, and that the big bang happened.

    to misqoute a briliant man
    discovering how the universe was created dosn't exclude the posibility of god, it just discribes the the mtheods he set down t ogo about creation.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    Originally posted by Agent_Steal
    Human DNA is also Similar to that of the Worm, Mosquito and Chicken
    Exactly. ALL life forms have the same DNA (with the exception of some virii and bacteria). The exact same DNA found in humans today, could be found in dinosaurs millions of years ago. The positioning of the DNA is TOTALLY different for those animals you listed, though, while in the case of chimps it's quite similar. This does NOT mean that man decended from chimps (as stated numerous times before, but bluntly ignored).

    And Agent_Steal: even if scientists would find out that a chimp's DNA is 98% similar to that of man beyond any doubt, you still wouldn't agree. If ALL scientists in the world would agree (and there will be a point in time where they will HAVE to agree), you would still hold on to your Bible and claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

  4. #34
    rebmeM roineS enilnOitnA steve.milner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,018
    Agent Steal:

    I have read your arguments for your lack of faith in evolution.

    Whilst the points you raise are interesting, and even persuasive, you have failed to provide an argument by discsusing alternatives to the information you provide.

    I personally don't know enough about some of the points you bring up, but contrary arguments exist. Just a couple of examples:

    The river delta argument is interesting, but no account is taken of other forces that are relevant - Plate techtonics etc. etc.

    Your fact stated on short period comets comes without any explanation. Why do short period coments indicate the universe is less than billions of years old? Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

    You have brought up a huge number of points, most of which have little bearing on evolution.

    The intersting points are on the age of the Earth and other solar system bodies.

    There are alternate theories which could account for your eveidence and one is that the Solar System is not as stable as we beleive it to be. It is possible that every 3,500 years or so a major event (like the birth of a new planet) generates enough upheaval to create some of the effects you note. For an interesting fictional examination of this try here:

    http://www.baen.com/chapters/cradle_p.htm - A very interesting SF read with some good psuedo science - but not a scientific proof.


    I have no idea if your points hold any scientific merit, those areas where I have some knowledge seem to show them be flawed, or deliberately limited in outlook.

    Personally I do not see the dichotomy between evollution and creation - Surely the creator simply created evolution.

    Steve
    IT, e-commerce, Retail, Programme & Project Management, EPoS, Supply Chain and Logistic Services. Yorkshire. http://www.bigi.uk.com

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by steve.milner
    Agent Steal:

    I have read your arguments for your lack of faith in evolution.

    Whilst the points you raise are interesting, and even persuasive, you have failed to provide an argument by discsusing alternatives to the information you provide.


    Steve
    if you found any of his points convinceing please read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI as it covers all of his points and shows the errors with them, the age of the earth, the comets, the river beds, everything.


    for the creationits heres a chalange, state your theory as a falseifialbe theroy with evadence supporting it without going to the bible (attacking eveolution is not proof, lack of eveolution dose not equal biblical creation.)
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  6. #36
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    bballad:
    Show me definitive proof that creationism is wrong...DISPROVE creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt and I'll concede that you are correct...until then you can believe whatever crap you want and I'll believe whatever "crap" I want to.

    BTW...I encourage you to take a look at the link in my first post....you should at least find it to be interesting.
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by allenb1963
    bballad:
    Show me definitive proof that creationism is wrong...DISPROVE creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt and I'll concede that you are correct...until then you can believe whatever crap you want and I'll believe whatever "crap" I want to.

    BTW...I encourage you to take a look at the link in my first post....you should at least find it to be interesting.
    It falls to those with extordanary claims to show proof, besides the point of science is not to disprove somethingits to provesomething that is why creationism has no right calling itself a theory, there is no proof only halftrouths and distortions used to attack eveolution. Now if Pope John Paul II and the catholic church can accept eveolution and see that science and learning about the way the world and univeres works is no threat to their faith why cannt you. Or is your beleif in god so weak that any change in your world view, any relization that there may be inacuracies in the bible would shater your weak faith?

    Oh and I have read the pusdoscience from drdino before, a lot of people have lagit claims on his "prize" that he refuses to pay, he is dealt with nicely on talkorigins, fallow my link it covers every one of the half truths and lies he spews
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    707
    As for me being ignorant humm that's a harsh word to use but no I am actually not ...
    I can also see that many of you have been cutting and pasting little bits of pieces that satisfy your own beliefe and yet you provide no really good solid evidence to back it up ...

    hummm Apes and us what do we have in similarities here I'll jot some of them down for you

    -- For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

    When was the last time you sat down and had a conversion with your fellow ape at the local zoo??

    --Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

    --humm very interesting

    --The apes’ ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on ‘How Man Began’. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orangutan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

    --Apes at the local zoo who can codify language wow that's amazing ...

    Email to a friend Printer-friendly version
    Differences between humans and animals
    by Andrew Lansdown
    First published in:
    Creation Ex Nihilo17(4):45
    September-November 1995

    On the lighter side, are there really any differences between us and the inhabitants of farms and zoos?

    ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.’ So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine (‘How Man Began’, March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to warm to it.

    For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

    Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

    The apes’ ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on ‘How Man Began’. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orangutan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

    Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.

    Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.

    Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, ‘Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.’

    Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?

    Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.

    The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.

    Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour…such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means UNIQUE to humans.
    As I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.
    [this was actually quite a good laugh ...] hope that you enjoy reading it ...

    Has evolution really been observed?

    What about wingless beetles antibiotic resistance,
    peppered moths and beneficial mutations?

    Molecules-to-man evolution is the theory that everything made itself, and that no creator was necessary. But this requires that non-intelligent processes could produce vast quantities of functional complex information. Even the simplest free-living organism carries the equivalent information of a 500-page book; humans have as much information as a thousand 500-page volumes.

    A **big obstacle for evolutionary belief** is this:## What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people?### Natural selection alone can't do it - selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don't carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn't explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

    Also, natural selection by definition is the survival of the fittest, meaning those who leave the most surviving offspring. Therefore it requires self-reproducing entities to start with. So it is powerless to explain the origin of the vast quantities of information of the first self-reproducing cell.

    For evolutionists there is only 'one game in town' to explain the new information which their theory requires - mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the 'recipe' or 'blueprint' specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next.

    Naturally, such scrambling of information will often be harmful - thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects. At best they may be neutral - having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying 'the enemy is now attacking', which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to 'the enemy is not attacking'. The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to 'tha enemy is now attacking' would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result.

    This is not surprising - an analogy: new computer programs do not arise from old computer programs by copying errors. Instead, the resulting program usually jams.

    However, evolutionists believe that occasionally, a 'good' mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

    THE WRONG TYPE OF CHANGE

    Are there 'good' mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such 'good' mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher - they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).

    Wingless beetles

    For example, beetles losing their wings. A particular winged beetle type lives on large continental areas; the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.

    What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the 'wing-making' information is lost or scrambled in some way.

    The damaged gene (a gene is like a long 'sentence' carrying one part of the total instructions recorded on the DNA) is then going to be passed to all that beetle's offspring, and to their offspring, as it is copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.

    If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, for example, it will have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by 'survival of the fittest' before it can leave offspring. Such so-called 'natural selection' can help to eliminate (or at least reduce the buildup of) such genetic mistakes.

    However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that only those of this new 'wingless' variety survive, which have therefore been 'naturally selected'.

    'There!' says the evolutionist. 'A favourable mutation - evolution in action!' However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect - a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.

    To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned.

    Similarly, many animals in caves are blind, with shrivelled eyes. A mutation causing shrivelling of the eye and loss of sight would not harm the individual in a cave with no light to see by anyway. And it would even be beneficial, since there is less chance of injuring a delicate eyeball. But in the light, such blind mutants would be eliminated by natural selection.

    Antibiotic resistance

    Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population, as shown by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. So natural selection only selected from pre-existing variation. But nothing new was produced. Similarly, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia, non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss of genetic diversity.

    Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g. penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a regulatory gene's loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less 'fit' because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.

    Another common cause of antibiotic resistance is mutational defects which hinder the bacterium's ability to transport substances through its cell membrane. Such a defect means that the antibiotic is less readily absorbed, so it is less likely to kill the bacterium. But in the wild, it would be unable to compete with bacteria with properly working cell membrane pumps which take up nutrients into the cell.

    Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria 'after their kind', not a different type of creature.

    Viruses are sometimes said to 'evolve', but what really happens is that mutations cause the changes to their protein coats. There is no increase in complexity, but sometimes the changes mean that antibodies do not recognise them. So the viruses are 'fitter', but there is still no increase in information.

    A similar case is a recent discovery that some antibiotic-resistant bacteria have abnormally high mutation rates. This is caused by a mutation in the genes for the sophisticated genetic proof-reading mechanisms present in all life. This means there is more chance of errors not being corrected. Sometimes one of these defects happens to result in antibiotic resistance, as explained above.

    Peppered moths and breeding

    One common fallacy promoted by evolutionists is that variation within a kind somehow proves particles-to-people evolution. The examples commonly cited, e.g. peppered moths and the Galápagos finches, are indeed examples of natural selection. But this is not evolution, since not new information has arisen. Given a pre-existing gene pool, different combinations of the genes arise through sexual reproduction and some of those may be better able to survive. So natural selection can account for the formation of different varieties, but cannot account for the origin of moths or finches. With the peppered moths, even were we to grant the truth of the story, all it would show is that natural selection changed the ratios of black and peppered forms. They were already present in the population, so nothing new was produced. And more recently, the whole story has been shown to be based on faked photos of moths glued on to tree trunks — the moths almost never rest there in real life. See Goodbye, peppered moths — A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck.

    It's also important to note that rapid speciation, involving no gain of genetic information, is in fact a prediction of the creation model. It explains how many varieties could arise from comparatively few 'kinds' on board the Ark. See Darwin's Finches: Evidence for rapid post-Flood 'adaptation', Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists and Brisk Biters — Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists.

    The different breeds of cattle and dogs are quite consistent with creation of separate types - e.g. a canine kind and a bovine kind, with large amounts of information. Man chose the animals with the characteristics he wanted, and bred from them. Thus the information for certain desired characteristics was concentrated in smaller selected populations. But the resulting breeds have all lost the information for the characteristics not wanted by man. Therefore, these breeds have less information than the wild type, so again the change is not of the right sort for molecules-to-man evolution. And they are still cattle and dogs, not different types of creature.

    Summary

    Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go 'uphill' - to add new information.

    The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don't effectively change the information, or the 'meaning' in the code) or else they are informationally downhill - defects which lose/corrupt information.

    The rare 'beneficial' mutations to which evolutionists cling all appear to be like wingless animals, blind cave animals, and many examples of antibiotic resistance. They are downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

    The examples commonly cited as 'evolution happening today' usually involving adaptation by natural selection, are without exception instances in which the net result is a loss of information in the population - either by mutation or by way of reduced genetic variety.

    All of our real-world experience, especially in the 'information age', would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking by 'true believers', not science.

    Read this hope that you like it
    Operation Cyberslam
    \"I\'ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.\" Author Unknown
    Microsoft Shared Computer Toolkit
    Proyecto Ututo EarthCam

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/language.htm
    wow examples of chimps useing language

    ok all of my links have had many referance, have gone through peer review, are sound in their research, hell the quote i copyied about thrmodynamics had physics refernces at the bottem for more depth. you assertions had nothing. humm your right my arguments have no support I guess I need to stick my head in the sand with you and head right on back to the stone age.


    I could do point by point rebutel of your last post but that is a lot more typeing then Irealy feel like doing so once again
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html every one of your half truths and lies are dealt with here. Are you misinformed or being willfuly decitfull? My guess is the later, your faith in od is so weak that the truth of life will shater it so you stick your head in the sand.

    Oh would you say that the pope is not a true christian because he knows that eveolution happened.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  10. #40
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Observed natural selection and breeding for the last 2000 years never proved anything, but is indication that with billions of years available, natural selection - outside the manipulation of mankind -can produce genetic mutations that survive and become different species. I always find it interesting to note the extreme differences of species in isolated areas, such as Madagascar and Australia. It seems they never interacted with later pools of genus and formed their own unique and natural adaptations to environment that are specifically unique to the rest of the world.

    Heck as with all, there is even some contradiction in Agent's last quote. It interesting, because every post in defense of creation is based on identifying and exploiting contradiction in evolution and natural selection. You say evolution is impossible because natural selection can weed out unwanted traits in species through selective breeding, but the fact that this does not produce a new species is not consistent with evolution, then go on to say that all the species today came from a few selected specimens on the coveted ark.

    If you really understand molecular biology and physics and advanced chemistry your arguments would take a different course I think. The physical human body is a complex arrangement of molecules arranged in very distinct patterns that can be duplicated. I find it fascinating that all of the stars and planets and the sun and space particles all have the exact same molecules that reside in our body. We are one. Every living creature on this planet has common particles and protein structures. There are no exceptions to this. These same particles are in abundance across the galaxy.

    Natural selection is NOT evolution. In fact, there were no predators way back when the first cell formed by particles. How it was formed is a guess. No one was there. It's as good as a guess as god breathing life into a bunch of dust. The theory goes that particles were charged to attract on one side and repel on the other and enough joined the party to form a loose membrane that protected DNA - another group of elemental particles. Actually, it's all a guess and many now believe those first particles are RNA. Because they to0 can replicate themselves. In the beginning there were no predators so natural selection DOES NOT apply. The competition was among protein molecules was finding other molecules to convert to energy or absorb, not predators. If there were predators, they would have ate all the food and .... well. I guess you could state that in this state, true changes were important. If you were a molecule and you could find energy to replicate my binding and absorbing oxygen, then you could possible out replicate a molecule that could not; because you had more energy? Just threw that in.
    No quotes here, my own understanding with no reference available except my noggin. Frankly some of the stuff posted here just doesn't make sense? I mean I have read some paragraphs five and six times and still don't know what is being said? Is it me?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides