And Evolution is OUT of the Picture!

Originally posted by mikromarius
all of us have DNA that has remained virtually unchanged over the last couple of tens of thousands of years

This isn't correct. The average person has about four mutations which were, of course, not present in their parents.

Originally posted by Silk
To say that DNA has not changed is slightly flawed - again to use a real world example - the core systems creating this device we call the internet themselves have not changed - but their capacity has evolved - its a well known therom that computing capacity doubles - but we still require the same base technology - the DNA of the computer. That is at least in my eyes evolution.

And our capacity to intereact with these devices - mouses, keyboards, voice etc are again evidence of evolution- though many might deny it. Maybe a prehistoric man would have been able to pilot a 747-400 - i doubt that - but we evolved enough to build the plane - design the avionics and fly it - something the pre Darwinians said was impossible.

It is actually easy to refute evolution if you exclude the use of technology - yep we still have two hands, eyes etc - but you then ignore the fact that we developed technology to advance ourselves.

And for any anti evolutionists out there - just how are you contributing to this thread without taking advantage of an evolutionary advance ?.

ev�o�lu�tion �� (�P�)��Pronunciation Key��(v-lshn, v-) n.

1.A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2.The process of developing.


3. Gradual development.



B. Biology.

1.Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

2.The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
---------

Ok, sure , but what youre saying isnt the same as biological evolution.

Originally posted by mikromarius

If biological life produced rather than reduced themselves, wouldn't the Earth have been much bigger now then, after billions of years with more or less advanced creatures and plants etc.?

Firstly, evolution does not go from simple to complex - that's a myth. Evolution goes for whatever survives best. But when we start off with the simplest of organisms, there's only one way to go. That's why the geologic record shows a progression from simple to complex.

Secondly, no - the Earth wouldn't need to grow at all. Populations cannot outgrow their resources for long. Nature keeps them under control nicely. In fact, this is essential to evolution. In any given generation, more offspring are produced than will be able to survive and reproduce. So the fittest survive and pass on their genes. If all organisms could survive, there would be no evolution.

The way I see it, life transforms energy in order to walk and talk and do the thing

Indeed. The earth takes in useful energy from the Sun, uses it to do work, then rejects useless heat to space. In essence, the Earth is one big heat engine. This is why anti-evolution arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics fail, incidentally.

It's a circle

More like an odd-looking spiral.

Man eats fruit, gets energy, then poops, and the poop gives life to the seed inside it, which grows up and yields fruits which the man eats again and the whole thing starts again. It's like magic. An eternity machine

Obviously that's not the case. Look at the growing population, or the countless extinct species. If there's one thing nature isn't, it's static.

Ok symantic points taken -

But at what point does evolution stop being Biological ? and who ever said it had to be biological ?

the cheetah ma be the fastest beast on the planet - but mankind aided is well able to outpace it.

To ignore advances in technology goes back to my earlier post - its an excuse not evidence.

Originally posted by Maverick
The following is a site that scientifically explains the creationism beliefs..

www.icr.org...

I'm well familiar with ICR. They are...less than reliable.

Still, at least you didn't bring up Hovind.

Originally posted by Silk
Kibagami -

sorry bout that

No problem. It's a point worth hammering.

Oh, and call me Jubei

Originally posted by Silk

But at what point does evolution stop being Biological ?

That depends what you mean by evolution. Typically in discussions like this, it's best to stick to the biological definition - change in allele frequency over time. Some creationists have a tendency to equivocate and throw in abiogenesis, stellar and galactic formation, and the Big Bang all under the heading of 'evolution'. It makes it easier to argue.

Of course, while technology helps us deal with selection pressures, it won't remove them completely at any time in the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by Maverick
The following is a site that scientifically explains the creationism beliefs..

www.icr.org...

I'm well familiar with ICR. They are...less than reliable.

Still, at least you didn't bring up Hovind.

"less than reliable." Would you care to elaborate?

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by mikromarius
all of us have DNA that has remained virtually unchanged over the last couple of tens of thousands of years

This isn't correct. The average person has about four mutations which were, of course, not present in their parents.

The below quote is from www.geneforum.org...

Fowler, Gregory L., "Teaching the New Genetics," publication info here.

Teaching the New Genetics

by G. Fowler

According to some experts, the human body, virtually unchanged for thousands of years, may be about to undergo a bewildering variety of modifications. With the announcement last March that "reprogenetic" technologies have been used to effectively alter the human germ line, 21st century biotechnology may be in the process of stretching the very meaning of the word "human" beyond all previous limits.

Here you see what causes the changes in life here on our planet: engenuety, intelligence and skills. As I have stated earlier, Man has been on this planet more or less from it's creation seen in perspective a little more than 2 billion years. Our tasks have varied from keeping life living to destroy everything living to pave way for the new creation. We are soon about to enter the last phase in the run of wisdom, a run that takes about 7000 years to finish, which is basically a war between three parts over who shall be allowed to keep the wisdom they are all keeping. It's a race of rats to say the least. If you ever wake up one morning and find yourself in Paradise and there is a mysterious, damned tree infront of you saying "don't eat from my fruits, you'll die!". Then don't freakin' eat from it! And especially not if there also sits a talking snake in it saying "Yea! Common! Common! It's fun!" Well dying ain't fun! Watch instead how when the fruit falls to the ground and becomes dirt, and the seed inside it shoots roots and a stem grows up, which the gardener rips up. That is wisdom. And a warning in itself.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by mikromarius
all of us have DNA that has remained virtually unchanged over the last couple of tens of thousands of years

This isn't correct. The average person has about four mutations which were, of course, not present in their parents.

These mutations you refer to are merely variations within a given preprogrammed framework of possibilities. The human gene has been as good as unchanged for thousands of years. Billions of mutations, but still the same.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

The symbol of the birth of Venus adopted by many European and American "Christians" as a symbol of Easter, another pagan resort. The main symbol of this birth is a rabbit giving birth to a chick, or more specifically, an egg. Hence an early recording of this same lunacy that one can sniff in the endless evolution debate. Just as much as Easter is godless in a Christian perspective, evolution is truthless in a scientific perspective. One species does not change overnight into a new one. Neither does it take thousands or millions of years. Life on this planet is created, designed, crafted, refined, tested well, we are a product of wisdom and life, and Love and a couple of other things you don't want to know too much about I'm afraid.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Maverick

"less than reliable." Would you care to elaborate?

Well, they use Ye Olde Argument from extremely bad thermodynamics, for one. That's never a good sign.

Originally posted by mikromarius

As I have stated earlier, Man has been on this planet more or less from it's creation seen in perspective a little more than 2 billion years

Your evidence for this claim?

Originally posted by mikromarius

These mutations you refer to are merely variations within a given preprogrammed framework of possibilities

Your evidence for this claim?

Originally posted by mikromarius

The main symbol of this birth is a rabbit giving birth to a chick, or more specifically, an egg

Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Just as much as Easter is godless in a Christian perspective, evolution is truthless in a scientific perspective

Apart from the vast quantities of scientific evidence supporting it, you mean?

One species does not change overnight into a new one. Neither does it take thousands or millions of years. Life on this planet is created, designed, crafted, refined, tested well, we are a product of wisdom and life, and Love and a couple of other things you don't want to know too much about I'm afraid

Sorry, did you just deny that speciation occurs?

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by mikromarius

As I have stated earlier, Man has been on this planet more or less from it's creation seen in perspective a little more than 2 billion years

Your evidence for this claim?

The Bible naturally, what did you think, that I was digging in the ground for bones like some kind of serpent searching for food? When using the scheme plotted down in Genesis 1 compared to the wisdom of Jesus, man or manlike creatures have been around here since a short period after it was created. Genesis 1 also says the universe is about 17 billion years old using the key of Jesus. And that God existed even before that.

It may be a complete hoax, it does show clear signs of it, but as far as I know it has never been disprooven, but some years ago there sufaced dozens of news stories about some strange, obviously crafted metal spheres, that had been found in a sediment layer dating 2.8 billion years old. I guess you could find some links in a search engine. There are also found human footprints in clay dating back to the outlived dragon age.

Look at India and their stories of these ancient battles. Real ancient battles, perhaps millions of years old and how their gods shows clear signs of abnormities often connected with offspring of radiation victims. How they discribe events that may indeed be atomic explotions etc. There is a Buddhist temple somewhere who have this stone wall. Each year in a specific pattern one stone is moved around until it is finally taken out of the wall and it starts over with a new stone in the wall. When all stones are gone, this Heaven and Earth will collapse the story goes. And with a calculator you can also find out that that date fits perfectly with the estimates science puts on the life of our Star, the Sun.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by Maverick

"less than reliable." Would you care to elaborate?

Well, they use Ye Olde Argument from extremely bad thermodynamics, for one. That's never a good sign.

Maybe you can explain how the thermodynamics are bad then

Originally posted by Maverick

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by Maverick

"less than reliable." Would you care to elaborate?

Well, they use Ye Olde Argument from extremely bad thermodynamics, for one. That's never a good sign.

Maybe you can explain how the thermodynamics are bad then

You read that wrong. Creationist arguments using thermodynamics are bad.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
It is mainly Christians that have this view.
My religion has never had any problems with Homosexuals and Evolution.
Deep

And let me guess your "Religion" is man made. Does your religion also say Murder is OK?

Gen 19 4-7
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

No, my religion is the word of God.
What makes you think my religion is Man Made?
And no my religion does not state that Murder is Okay.
Deep


[Edited on 2-12-2003 by ZeroDeep]