Another way to think of Evolution

Evolution… it’s Possible, but not probable…

Let's take the DNA sequence. The basic directions for building life as we know it (I know some viruses are just RNA but they're also not always considered life either). It's a sequence on chemical switches that acts much like a computer's binary system (only with 4 options instead of 2). The different orders of the chemicals mean different things. Genetic mutations occur when radiation or some other outside force causes the genetic code to... break, reorder itself slightly, etc... basically causing an error when being read when reproducing cells.. and making an altered copy instead of an exact copy. The same can happen in computers as information is transfered around through different parts of the computer and the internet... only this is most likely going to be causeed by RF interference, magnetic forces, etc... but essentially causing an alteration in the computer code.

In order for evolution to take place, even on the smallest scale, you HAVE to have the following……

1.) genetic mutations HAVE take place. (otherwise every creature would be an exact copy (blended of course between mom and dad) of it's parents).

2.) said mutation HAS to be beneficial or at least not harmful in order to be passed on successfully.In other words, it has to make the creature with the mutation either better (so it lives longer...stronger, faster, etc...), or at least more favorable in the eyes of mates than the other creatures of it’s kind around it. Otherwise the mutation will die with that creature.

Now, genetic mutations only happen every so often and the odds that a mutation will not kill or at least be severely detrimental to the creature is slim to none. Think of the genetic mutations we have in humanity. If you can’t think of any, it’s probably because we have different name for 99.999% (or so) of them… genetic DISEASES. In other words very VERY few mutations are beneficial to a creature, while the vast majority will kill the creature on it’s own, or greatly increase the odds that the creature will get killed in the wild.

So let's make an example...

Let's say there's an internet company that sells power tools (power tool internet store). When someone orders a product they enter what they want in a field (box where you type). Let's say this person enters "Hammer" as what they want to buy (along with their other ordering info, address etc...). The word "Hammer" enters their database. Somewhere along the way some magnetic force interferes with the transmission of the signal and “Hammer” becomes “Ham§er”. The word has now “mutated”… its code was changed and it is now a different word than “Hammer”. Problem is… “Ham§er” isn’t a word. Essentially this would be a bad mutation.

NOW… if it had “mutated” to “Hummer” (as in the vehicle…. Get your minds out of the gutter)…. It WOULD be a word… and instead of getting a hammer in the mail, he might get a Hummer H1… which I would think would be a GOOD mutation. Truck for the price of a hammer. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT… the odds that the second character (and ONLY the second character) would mutate to a “u” are so small that it’s unthinkable. Just think… every character… H, a, m, m, e, and r if mutated, has the chance to mutate to any of several thousand possible characters a computer can display… and the odds that the second character would mutate exactly to a lowercase “u” are so astronomically, stupifyingly small that there’s no point in waiting for it.

This brings us back to evolution. While POSSIBLE… it is neither probable, nor plausible that a fish, would mutate to a human (even through millions of generations)… instead of a fish continually mutating into a fish with half a brain or a fish with no fins. Just like “Hammer” becoming “Hummer” instead of “Ham§er” or “ƒammer”.

*****The main point….
Remember that there’s just one mutation in the hammer example… saying a fish will mutate to a human, is like saying “Hammer” will mutate to “Electric Drill” even through a billion generations… and just remember, you have to have a functional, “good mutation” every step of the way.

All of these are very good points. I know some people will counter by bringing up examples of modern mutations that seem to contradict these points. One very common example is the bacterial immunity to antibiotics. While this certainly is an exmple of a 'good' mutation, it is a mutation that had probably occurred before the use of antibiotics and had simply died out. the reason is this: bacteria have always produced chemicals which made them immune to, say pennicillin, but until we started using it, it was detrimental to produce large amounts since it is not present in such large amounts in nature.

What I'm really saying here is, I agree with you. Small-scale mutations are proven, but the large-scale evolution we are taught as fact is so ridiculously improbable that in any other science it would be discounted as impossible.

True... BUT....

You also have to remember how many bacteria there are in the world, and how often they reproduce.

The British Broadcasting Corporation quoted microbiologist William Whitman on the estimated number of bacteria in the world: five million trillion trillion.

I believe that's...
5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (might have to add 9 MORE zeros, I'm not quite sure)

and they reproduce individually between every 20min to 8 hours or so.... meaning EVERY DAY, there are quadrillions upon quadrillions of generations... This makes the odds far, FAR greater than with animals, that mutations will occur just on sheer numbers. They are also much simpler organisms... which increases the odds of good mutations. And the rate of reproduction greatly increases the frequency at which mutations occur over the mass population.

Ridiculaously improbable?

Look at dogs for instance. A pug even. This dog was bread by the chinese. They liked when the dogs hat a flatter, more human like face. The dogs with this trait were encouraged by humans (I.E. theuir environment) to breed. Eventually, you have a dog that is significantly different than other dogs.

What about the samuri crab? Beagle? Different species of cats (large and small). These are not small scale evolutions. They are not ridiculously improbable either. Rather, they are by far the most reasobable explanations for what we observe. Ridiculously improbable is the number of people that think like you.

Again, this is another example of loss of information. All dogs were once wolves or wolf-like beings. Through extensive select breeding certain traits were lost, none were gained. For your pug example, there was always information for long noses and short noses, only now the trait for the long noses is gone, so all pugs have short noses. The day someone breeds a bunch of pugs together and gets a wolf again is the day I will agree with your point.

BTW 'ridiculously improbable is the number of people that think like you' WTF is that supposed to mean?

Originally posted by Seapeople
Ridiculaously improbable?

Look at dogs for instance. A pug even. This dog was bread by the chinese. They liked when the dogs hat a flatter, more human like face. The dogs with this trait were encouraged by humans (I.E. theuir environment) to breed. Eventually, you have a dog that is significantly different than other dogs.

FORCED to breed you mean. If you're the only guy in the world and there's only one girl, I'm sure you'd end up gettin' busy eventually even if you were both ugly as crap and had genetic diseases. There's a reason it's called Selective BREEDING as opposed to NATURAL Selection.

In your cases there are no mutations, just different variations of already present DNA... although these may in the past have been caused by mutations, they are not enough to demonstrate evolution.

On templersstorms1312's point, I'd like to say... the day you breed a bunch of pug's together and get a CAT... is the day I'll agree with your point.

Domesticated Dogs are a bad point to use because the different species' traits are so intermingled because of interbreeding. Basically, their DNA has been bastardized. In the wild, you you don't see lions and tigers interbreeding... although they CAN (hence the Liger)... but they just don't.

So let's suppose Pugs and Shelties were wild species of dogs, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't interbreed in the wild. But if you lock 'em both in a room for their whole lives, they'd either kill eachother, or you'd get little Shugs or Pelties or something... see what I mean... but you're not demonstrating EVOLUTION... you're demonstrating INTERBREEDING.

Nice try though




OH OH OH... I missed something in my bacteria comment... they also reproduce a-sexually... so that eliminates the chance that a mutation won't pass on due to a mate not choosing the mutated bacteria... which is a HUGE issue with most animals... example:
People... If you had a mutation that caused a third arm to grow out of your head, EVEN THOUGH the mutation might make you better equipped... you can hold more things, reach higher, etc... the odds that you'd be chosen by a woman to have children with isn't good at all... but if you could reproduce a-sexually like a bacteria... then that physical unattractiveness to a mate wouldn't matter... and the mutation could pass on. See what I mean?

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]

so whales have toe bones for what reasion? how about pengwens the have wings for what reasion? And your mixing up evolution with Mutations .
For instance the horse linige is well known it was a woodland creatcher millions of years agaio but a climet change caused the forest were it lived to die off and in order for it to servive in its new enervierment it needed to be able to run faster hence developed longer legs and larger lungs this evolution of the horse was a direct result of the change in climet in wich it found its self .a forced change .
Heres a moderen animal that evolving FAST a racoon .Take a racoon that has been in the city enervierment for a few generations and take a racoon straght from the woods and test there intellegences and see wich is smarter.
I can grante you the city coon is because the city is a much more complacated place to live and given 1000 years in this new enervirment the new animal will no longer even be able to bred with its woodes ansters .
But hay people will continu to deni eveloution because if its true then were no longer anything special and of corse were so much more then a animal right?

SPELLING... dear lord... SPELLING!

Please rewrite your post in English, then I'll read it. Unless English isn't your native language, you just proved to me that I shouldn't listen to a word you say.

And your coon point is moot since that's only demonstrating how the environment affects behavior, there's no genetic difference between the woods coon and the city coon... you're basically saying that country people are genetically different than city people. (leave the redneck jokes out please) and since there have been country people and city people for thousands of years, and they can still interbreed, your point is BOGUS! I live near Washington DC, yet I can go to Australia and find an Aboriginal girl and have kids... even though they've lived in the wild for thousands of years and my ancestors have lived in cities for thousands of years.

Nice try though

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]

Another point on this whole wolf thing:
Dogs have been bred selectively for thousands of years, bred for specific traits and 'personalities' yet even with this EXTREME case of change, dogs are still genetically close enough to wolves to breed with them, and more importantly, are still close enough to each other to breed between subspecies.

nice point templer I agree.

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
Again, this is another example of loss of information. All dogs were once wolves or wolf-like beings. Through extensive select breeding certain traits were lost, none were gained. For your pug example, there was always information for long noses and short noses, only now the trait for the long noses is gone, so all pugs have short noses. The day someone breeds a bunch of pugs together and gets a wolf again is the day I will agree with your point.

BTW 'ridiculously improbable is the number of people that think like you' WTF is that supposed to mean?

Born again? The only other alternative to evolution in this matter is creation. Maybe pentacostal? Do you speak in tongues? Has jesus himself came down and told you what to think like he did for your buddy pat robertson?

What do you know about the samurai crab? Listen to a little story, documented by science, none the less. This is freeking so amazing that this happened considering that it is impossible according to your genius mind who thinks people walk on water and all that good stuff.

Heike (samurai) crabs used to be just a normal crab. It had distinct markings on its back. A prime food for those fishing off of the shore of japan actually. Thats how they started out at least. Some samurai guy, (if you want the whole story of it, I will tell you) was losing a war and killed himself, buy walking out to sea. One of those honor things I suppose. In any case, these crabs were fished for, and every now and then one would surface with markings that resembled a human face, however so slightly it was. As a means of respect, those crabs were thrown back into the water and a legend was born in honor of this samurai. The legend is that the samurai guy walks in the ocean for one reason or another for eternity. Well, turns out that people started to look for these crabs when they fished. Every time one would have markings that resembled a face, they would be thrown back as part of a tradition of sorts. Today, these crabs ALL ( that means every single one of them) bear a distinct trait. They all have a markings on their back that look so strikingly like a japanese samurai that it is almost disturbing.

In more detail, this is what happened. (Please look it up, and do the research for yourself) This crab was being killed for food. Random distortions in the pattern of its back though, made things change. Much like when a human couple has a child, the child will bear traits of the mother, and of the father. Also that child will always, 100% of the time, bear its own traits. 100% of the time, it will bear GENETIC traits from the mother. 100% of the time it will bear GENETIC traits from the father. 100% of the time it bear its own unique traits. I had to make that clear. Every crab bears traits from its parents and itself in exactly the same maner (but you knew that considering your degree in biology which is so apparent). So when a UNIQUE trait came about in its genetics, that was nothing to be out of the ordinary.

Something else that was not out of the ordinary was more significant. The random genetic trait unique to these crabs eventually hit a hot spot. It allowed the markings on the crab to look like a face, and by chance, that marking made it more likely to survive. So it was released to the sea and consequently more likely to breed. Anything that was similar to this, made it more likely for the crab to breed. So eventually, that trait that is passed down from the parents is the face on its back....and new random traits will eventually come about....BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO. Unless you have seen a child that looks exactly like its parents both at the same time....(funny logic you people seem to have).

The point is, even though you will make up some stupid excuse as to why its not true (probably a copy paste from answers in genesis.com), that the crab did GAIN something that it did not have. It gained appearance that made it more likely to survive in EXACTLY the way evolution describes.

I cannot wait for your response to this. I always like people intentionally throwing logic and facts out the window in favor of nonsense beacause they just cannot bring themselves to believe that they are not special.

Ah, so glad you returned Seapeople.

I hate to be the one to break down your fortress of fact (not really:duh but you're saying the exact same thing you said about the dogs. So all these crabs have the face marking now. That just means that they lost the genetic information for non-face like markings. That proves nothing. I'm sure there were always face-marked crabs, but until the legend came about and the face ones were given an advantage to survive, there was genetic information for all kinds of markings. Now, however, only the mark of the face appears.

BTW, as you go off claiming a religious fervor and a closed mind, you should first remove your non-religious fervor and open your own mind. I also am posting only facts, whereas your posts are theories and speculations people pass off as fact.

I don't think I'm getting either of your points.

So, you've .. gone and rehashed the general Creationist agument against Darwinist Evolution, and said it's "A New Way To View Evolution" - how nice.

It all comes down to one thing - one spot where the two differ.

They're both theories, I'll give you that.

They're both speculative, I'll give you that.

But while evolutionists say "We know y to z and a to b, but not z to a - let's see what could fit", creationists say "We know y to z and a to b.. hm, God likely made z go to a. Yeah. Done!"


I get that the idea that I am the result of the genetic mutation of a single celled creature is disturbing and bizarre, but isn't that the kind of leap of faith you take in religion?

Is it impossible that God exists and that he set things up so that evolution could happen?

Just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible.


Also - small scale mutations ARE what drives evolution. The difference between me seeing well and seeing poorly is tiny. Miniscule. The difference between me having large eyes and me having small eyes is tiny. If seeing poorly somehow allowed me to excel (oh, it could) and the trait took off, then a future trait to have larger eyes (as opposed to simply better sight) could also take off. Within a space of about 10 generations you could have small eyed folk with good sight to large eyed folk with good sight.

Over 4 Billion years, you don't think bacteria could turn into little plankton, that could turn into big plankton, that go both ways, some actively moving with the pattern of the sun up and down while some others are stationary, going to permanent low movement plants and temporary high movement animals, going to animals that live ashore from tides, plants that land on shore by spore and manage to survive. Animals that maneuver slightly to be on shore more often, and that adapt the ability to maneuver better on shore than off. Plants that thrive in the open resources on shore and never go back - amphibians, and fish. Animals that, as time goes and they move about, get larger and larger, becoming diverse depending upon their breeding locations.

If you honestly can't see that, and can't get that warm feeling in your gut that says "This is it" - then I feel sorry for you. Evolution isn't perfect, but considering it's fact on small scales and manages to fit with most of our observations on large scales, I'm going with it, instead of the "I don't know what I like, but I don't like what you've got" theories out there.

Originally posted by Greyhaven7
In your cases there are no mutations, just different variations of already present DNA... although these may in the past have been caused by mutations, they are not enough to demonstrate evolution.

In fact, they are. Evolution occurs when something causes a breeding selection of one part of a group over another part of a group... as when animals stranded on an island (mammoths) start out at normal size and gradually become smaller with other changes because a small animal needs less food.

Evolution in action.

Originally posted by templersstorms1312


BTW, as you go off claiming a religious fervor and a closed mind, you should first remove your non-religious fervor and open your own mind. I also am posting only facts, whereas your posts are theories and speculations people pass off as fact.

So you are only posting facts? And I am posting theory you say. So what you are saying is that I am lying about the pug. I am lying when I speak of antibiotics. I am lying about the samurai crab. I am lying about our ability to trace DNA samples nearly thousands of years to sources. I am lying about our knowledge of DNA. Tell me, since you are an expert in DNA, what DNA did the crab lose (since I am the liar)? Wait, could it be that you speculated the crab lost something? You theorised incorrectly? That would have to be the case unless I lied. So tell me, since I am wrong, and you know that you are right because you did the research from a book other than the bible, what DNA did the crab lose?

I am going to ask you a few series of questions. Answer them if you have the courage (you will at first, but at the end, you are going to get angry).

1) When a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, and produce a child, does that child bear genetic traits via genes from both the mother and father? Yes or No.

2) When that child is born, does it not also bear its own unique genetic traits? Yes or No.

3) Is it more likely for two short parents to bear a short child? Yes or No.

4) Is it possible for two short parents to have a tall child? Yes or No.

5) Have sceintists been able to examine DNA to such an accurate extent, that from the blood or hair sample of a child, they can identify parents of the child? Grandparents? Even at high accuracy, distant relatives? Yes or No.

Answer these, and then I'll ask you more. (I have a weird feeling that after a few more series of questions, you will stop answering.)

Edit: Even though these are very simple yes and no questions, how many "yes, but......'s" do you want to bet I get? We should take a poll.

Editted to correct a bad error on my part, thanks for pointing it out grey.

[edit on 1/31/2005 by Seapeople]

1) When a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, and produce a child, does that child bear genetic traits via genes from both the mother and father? Yes or No.

Genetic traits, meaning physical traits that appear or meaning that it's genetic code is an exact combined-copy of it's parents' DNA? If you mean the latter, then... always, yes (unless a mutation occurs).

2) When that child is born, does it not also bear its own unique genetic traits? Yes or No.

Bearing traits isn't NECESSARILY evidence of evolution (although sometimes certain traits do support the theory, I agree). FOR INSTANCE. I have red hair, my mother is blonde, and my father has dark brown hair. Yet I'm not any more evolved than they are... if you look back in my mother's side of the family there are a couple people here and there that have red hair. It's a DOMINANT/RECESSIVE GENE emergance that you're talking about, not NEW traits. Like in my case, the gene for red hair has always been there, it just required the right combination of dominant and recessive genes for hair color to make it the gene that is visible instead of the others.

So to answer the question I think you meant to ask...
Q.) Does the child bare traits new and unique to it genetically and never before seen in it's species every time a child is born?
A.) ONLY when a genetic mutation occurs.

3) Is it more likely for two short parents to bear a tall or short child? Yes or No.

ok, first of, that's NOT a "yes or no" question.... anyway....

Short. In fact the child SHOULD be shorter than his/her parents. But this isn't a new trait because the height gene in humans is prone to (but not 100% dependant on) multifactorial inheritance or polygenetic inheritance, meaning its kinda' an add or subtract thing.

4) Is it possible for two short parents to have a tall child? Yes or No.

I've seen it, so I have to say yes. (I can't really attest to wether or not the father was REALLY the father of the person though, but only the mailman knows for sure )

5) Have sceintists been able to examine DNA to such an accurate extent, that from the blood or hair sample of a child, they can identify parents of the child? Grandparents? Even at high accuracy, distant relatives? Yes or No.

Accurate or precise? Because they do mean differnt things. As I am not an expert genetic tester, I can't really say yes or no, but I have to asume that those who are experts do know, and since they say they have, I would have to agree with them.

Distant relatives is not a specific enough term. If that's the case and evolution is the correct theory, then you should be able to test yourself and a newt and find that you're family (I'm aware that the genetics are similar, but it's not the same thing). In fact, if evolution is correct, you should be able to test ANY LIVING THING on the planet and find a family resembelance with yourself as specific as the similarities between you and your mom. So, be more specific please.

I think you're focused in the wrong area again. Most of those questions aren't asking about evolution except within the bounds of the genetics present in the creatures already. The subjects in these questions do NOT ask anything that will answer how the first single celled organism on the planet evolved into a human. You're basically saying that the first life on the planet's DNA contained ALL THE INFORMATION ever needed to produce ALL THE LIFE in ALL IT'S VARIETY we have today. You're leaving out mutation... the ability to creat new, unique traits that do not exist in the parent creatures even on the genetic level... that is where evolution HAS to occur... otherwise a fish will always be a fish, an aomeba will always be an aomeba, they may look different, but without mutation, they'll never be anything but fish and aomebas.

Originally posted by Viendin
So, you've .. gone and rehashed the general Creationist agument against Darwinist Evolution, and said it's "A New Way To View Evolution" - how nice.

Yeah, I was trying to help people understand HOW evolution is supposed to work. I didn't present any new theories, only a NEW WAY TO VIEW Evolution. A helpful analogy (the computer thing... did you even read what I wrote btw?) to assist people in understanding the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by Viendin
But while evolutionists say "We know y to z and a to b, but not z to a - let's see what could fit", creationists say "We know y to z and a to b.. hm, God likely made z go to a. Yeah. Done!"

Have I mentioned God ONCE? NO. Have I said I'm a creationist? NO. Thanks for making unprevoked assaults on religious groups, great attitude that is, keep it up, it'll get you a lot of enemies.

Originally posted by Viendin
I get that the idea that I am the result of the genetic mutation of a single celled creature is disturbing and bizarre, but isn't that the kind of leap of faith you take in religion?

Who mentioned religion?? Oh yeah, the first person to mention religion was someone on YOUR side of the argument.

And the mutation thing is the point I'm trying to make. That its POSSIBLE but not PROBABLE... JUST LIKE I WROTE. Read what I write before you attack me. I'm not at all arguing the possible part, only the probable part, and just because something CAN happen, doesn't mean it will.

Originally posted by Viendin
Is it impossible that God exists and that he set things up so that evolution could happen?

That's a little closer to where I stand on this issue, but since we're not talking about God here, let's move on. Funny how you evolutionists always want to talk about God.

Originally posted by ViendinJust because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible.

the FIRST words I typed in this entire thread:

Evolution… it’s Possible, but not probable…

besides the title.

Originally posted by Viendin
Also - small scale mutations ARE what drives evolution. The difference between me seeing well and seeing poorly is tiny. Miniscule. The difference between me having large eyes and me having small eyes is tiny. If seeing poorly somehow allowed me to excel (oh, it could) and the trait took off, then a future trait to have larger eyes (as opposed to simply better sight) could also take off. Within a space of about 10 generations you could have small eyed folk with good sight to large eyed folk with good sight.

Polygenetic inheritance... not evolution. The two groups created are sill human... perhaps better adapted to their individual environments, but no mutation means they're still human, and always will be. I'm not arguing evolution on this miniscule scale, I'm AGREEING with it on the tiny levels... we're arguing the BIG PICTURE... please argue the right argument.

Originally posted by Viendin
Over 4 Billion years, you don't think bacteria could turn into little plankton, that could turn into big plankton, that go both ways, some actively moving with the pattern of the sun up and down while some others are stationary, going to permanent low movement plants and temporary high movement animals, going to animals that live ashore from tides, plants that land on shore by spore and manage to survive. Animals that maneuver slightly to be on shore more often, and that adapt the ability to maneuver better on shore than off. Plants that thrive in the open resources on shore and never go back - amphibians, and fish. Animals that, as time goes and they move about, get larger and larger, becoming diverse depending upon their breeding locations.

4 billion years.... no. I think in 1,000,000 times that maybe, but not 4 billion... AND NOT WITHOUT MUTATION!

Originally posted by Viendin
If you honestly can't see that, and can't get that warm feeling in your gut that says "This is it" - then I feel sorry for you. Evolution isn't perfect, but considering it's fact on small scales and manages to fit with most of our observations on large scales, I'm going with it, instead of the "I don't know what I like, but I don't like what you've got" theories out there.

Hey, if "good/close enough" is good enough for you, that's fine, I strive for the truth.



[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]

Grey,

#2) Does a child bear its own unique traits. You said no, unless a mutation occurs.

So, what you are saying is that a child has absolutely no unique genetic features independent of its parents. You are wrong. Every child has features gained from both parents and features unique to itself.

#3) I goofed it, and put in tall. You are right and I will edit. Then you answer again.

#4) It is genetically possible for the unique traits described in #2 to allow a child to be tall. This would be one of those mutations you describe.

#5) Can a scientist say without a shadow of a doubt who's DNA belongs to who? Yes. The margin of error does exist. It is physically possible to get the wrong answer from genetic codes 1 million times in a row. Is it likely? No.

The problem is that I don't think anyone in here cares about probability. If something is likely, or probable......you cannot throw it away and out the window as christians do. Is it probable that someone made bread and wine from thin air? No. Why would someone choose to believe that over something that is very likely?

[edit on 1/31/2005 by Seapeople]

Originally posted by Seapeople
So, what you are saying is that a child has absolutely no unique genetic features independent of its parents.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Since the chromosomes in both gammetes (male + female) are genetic copies of the parents' DNA, there can be no NEW genetic material. While the genes selected to be transfered to the child may not be genes that are prevolent (the physical features you SEE) in the parents, the genes were still there in the first place, just are programed not to be read for that specific human.

Originally posted by Seapeople
You are wrong. Every child has features gained from both parents and features unique to itself.

No I'm not. Please explain how you think NEW genetic material is encoded for the child if it doesn't come from the parents. What you are telling me is that randomly, without mutation, never-before-seen genetic material comes out of nowhere and joins the DNA of the child. If this happened, we'd have freaks walking everywhere and I doubt anyone would look even remotely human anymore.

Originally posted by Seapeople
#3) I goofed it, and put in tall. You are right and I will edit. Then you answer again.

no prob.

Originally posted by Seapeople
The problem is that I don't think anyone in here cares about probability. If something is likely, or probable......you cannot throw it away and out the window as christians do. Is it probable that someone made bread and wine from thin air? No. Why would someone choose to believe that over something that is very likely?

If no one cares, why did they respond to a post where the first line is:

Evolution… it’s Possible, but not probable…

which clearly means that this thread is going to argue the PROBABLE part of that, not the possible.

I'm a christian, and I don't throw it out the window. I just don't think it's the right answer with the time frame provided (in either creationist or evolutionist timeframes of the earth). And no one made bread and wine from thin air in the Bible. Jesus turned water into wine, but not from thin air. Just so you realize, the theory of evolution basically says that humans were created from thin air too (meaning lifeless particles)... just took longer.

Remeber this too.
Just because you believe something, doesn't make it so... and just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean it isn't so. I haven't disagreed with any part of evolution in this post except the timeframe in which it's said to have taken place. Given an infinite timeframe I think anything could be possible, I just don't think 4 billion years is enough to create a human out of thin air . I've disagreed with things you've said because they were either wrong or not points valid to the subject, but I have not disagreed with other parts of the theory of evolution.

Personally, I think God created everything, but that he guided evolution to create us... kind of a Devine Selective breeding with a little devine intervention to create the propper mutations along the way... which would eliminate a lot of the waiting game and chance of evolution. At some point I think he said "ok, that'll do" and let life go on it's own, free to mutate and breed freely, but with the basis he created. Kind of like a kid watching his ant farm to see what'll happen.

But unguided, I don't think the process could possibly happen that fast.

Let's leave God and religion out of this though. Now that you know my views, please understand that I'm looking at the theory of evolution from a non-bias standpoint. I'm not discounting it. I'm examining facts and info to develop what seems to be the truth as best I can figure it. I'm not saying what I'm saying because I want to feel "better" than animals. I'm saying it to find the truth.

Alright Seapeople, my answers are going to be about the same as Grey's, so go ahead and point out the relevance of these questions. I am interested to see how these will 'prove' the evolution theory. I'm not saying that this theory is not true, nor am I posting any other theory that I claim is; rather I am only saying that all the examples you have given so far are representations of only a loss of information. None of these examples show how significant genetic information can be gained through minor mutations. The pugs, the crabs, the bacteria, they are all documented scientific events, yes, but they are irrelevant unless you are trying to prove that mutations exists, which both Grey and I have completely agreed with. So if, in only 4 billion years, a single-celled orgasnism can evolve into a full variety of multi-cellular organisms, complete with sexual reproduction, specialized organs and capable of intelligent thought, then wouldn't there be documented gain of information by now?