A question to evolutionists...

reply to post by RicoMarston


I do agree that the evolutionary process is carried on through the parents which conceived it...And that no noticeable changes can be seen throughout the lifetime of a living organism in regards to evolution.

Creation and evolution run hand in hand,is it possible to even have one without the other?

reply to post by RebelRouser

we came from amoeba then turned into to fish,then apes, then us. even today.

^ Probably the stupidest summary of what evolution is.... Get at least a decent understanding of what evolution is before you type this crap. We did not come from apes. No evolutionary biologist has EVER said we came from apes.

d like to believe the world didnt just happen do this on its own. ill put my faith in God

Why not? That makes the mystery that much greater. Saying god created everything is putting a cap on learning new things and discourages us from wanting to know more. Having faith is being lazy.

Originally posted by RebelRouser
the fact that there are even debates makes it obvious that there's no solid proof for either side.

The only debate exists in the minds of creationists. Darwin ended the discussion 150 years ago. You wish to 'believe' otherwise? Well, it's your loss. Personally, I'd rather embrace a factual understanding of the world around us.

Just for the record - don't assume because I attack your views on this subject I'm also attacking your religion. I'm not - I respect your religious views. But when you present the notion that evolution is an idea, you're stepping out of reality into fantasy.

reply to post by Daedal


So basically you're just replacing the word "procreation" with "creation"?

To answer your question, yes, procreation is an integral part of the theory.

Creation and evolution run hand in hand,is it possible to even have one without the other?

Given that there's zero objective evidence for creationism...it seems that way.

reply to post by Daedal

In regards to creation my question is...Do humans create or evolve.

As organisms, we reproduce. As a species, or (more properly) as populations of a species, we evolve.

If you want to try and use a semantic argument that reproduce, in its biological context, is synonymous with create, in the decidedly non-biological context you're attempting here, feel free. But that's a long and winding path to get from point A to point B. I hope you're prepared to show each logical step of how you get there.

reply to post by Daedal

In regards to creation my question is...Do humans create or evolve.

Humans create lots of stuff... and we also evolve...

The only way IMO to evolve you must be able to pro - create.

If you are using the term "Pro-Create" as PROCREATE, meaning to reproduce... then yes... Evolution is necessarily dependant upon Genetic Replication, and cannot exist without it (Unless you do some form of cloning from germ-line cells... but that would sort of be reproduction also)

Is it possible to even have evolution without the ability to pro - create what has already been created?

No, it is not possible to Evolve, if no reproduction is taking place, because Evolution is a By-product of Reproduction.

I guess what I'm trying to say is in order for their to be an evolutionary process, birth and creation has to take place in order for the evolutionary process to continue.

I find the word "Creation" highly suspect.... However, disregarding that (obvious) verbal slip, yes, you are correct, without Reproduction, birth, sporeing, or some OTHER form of replication.... Evolution is impossible.

Without this we wouldn't be here to begin with.

The Theory of Evolution does not encompass the origins of life...

The theory only concerns the replication of organisms with identifiable genetic codes.

What you are talking about isn't covered by the theory of Evolution, and I would suggest looking at the theory of Abiogenesis for more accurate information in line with what you are talking about.

life has to be pro - created to reproduce offspring and bring into being that which is being replicated from it's creator.

You keep using the word "Created" and "Pro-Created".... I suspect that you separated the word "Procreated" into "Pro-Created" to somehow bring the topic of religion into your discussion....

You should probably stay away from that, because it's not entirely necessary that you do this.

Our current theories on the origin of life (From it's inception) are somewhat hazy, due to our lack of evidence from the time period in question (about 3 billion years ago... fossils of lipids and such don't normally survive in fossil form for that long.)

The current Theory of Abiogenesis is a hypothesis of HOW it might be possible for life to form from a complex organic soup.

Now, bear in mind... we don't really have any EVIDENCE that life formed this way... but considering that Science itself cannot allow for "Magical" creation methods, we have to use the basic laws of the universe that we can actually observe to make a Scientific explanation for life.

That's not to say that the First proto-life forms on earth WEREN'T *created*, by God, Aliens, or whatever....

But, since we have about as much proof for Aliens, or God creating life on earth, as we do for the flying spaghetti monster creating life on earth.... we must attempt to explain the origins of life through purely natural means (No Magic, No Alien Intervention, etc...)



Now, what is very important to understand, is that We actually have no Proof that Abiogenesis (The bio-chemical theory) actually HAPPENED.

What Abiogenesis actually IS, is the Study of how life *COULD* have arisen without "Outside Interference"

And, from what we have learned, toying with various primordial chemicals... is that it is *POSSIBLE* for these primitive cell like structures to spontaneously form, and then to gradually increase in complexity through very specific ways.

Now, we don't know *IF* that is what actually happened.... but, given what we understand of the natural world, IT is Scientifically possible that it COULD have happened this way, and THAT is what the "Theory of Abiogeneis" is studying... How life COULD have arisen by completely natural means.

The theory of Evolution is basically a FACT, in that we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Evolutionary processes actually Occur.

And we can trace our Genetic Lineage back Pretty far into the past. (Common Genetic Ancestor of All the the Kingdoms of life, Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Bacteria.)

en.wikipedia.org...

Abiogenesis is the study of how Cells, and Genetic Structures MAY HAVE ARISEN.

So, as you can see.... that leaves you a little wiggle room...

Therefore is it safe to assume that evolution is the continuation of creation.

In science, it is NEVER safe to assume anything.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


DNA hasn't chosen to use procreation to reproduce itself. It is pretty obvious we have been programmed genetically. It didn't all come together in the absence of intelligent design. Understanding what has been encoded in our genetics is something science is just beginning to understand. Long ways to go.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
It didn't all come together in the absence of intelligent design.

source....

no 2nd line necessary

reply to post by Tony4211

^ Probably the stupidest summary of what evolution is.... Get at least a decent understanding of what evolution is before you type this crap. We did not come from apes. No evolutionary biologist has EVER said we came from apes.

sorry. asking to go through all of is like asking me to list every city from ny to ca on a cross country trip to explain a vaction. id rather just giving you the jist with a few states and if you BELIEVE what you said. it seems like its you that needs to get the better understanding. according to an "evolutionist" we came from this mysterious common ancestor that evolved from ape that no one has ever not found. therefore, if this thing came from ape, so did we.. thats like saying i didnt come from my grandma because my mom gave birth to me.. go back and look at ur evolutionary tree, trace it to the bottom to see the magical things humans came from.

Saying god created everything is putting a cap on learning new things and discourages us from wanting to know more. Having faith is being lazy.

lol. how naive.. you sound awfully judgmental. it sounds like u stereotype people that believe in God and class them as "opposed to science" cause we think its black magic or something lol. i agree with evloution. i just dont believe that's how man was created. its funny you say that having faith makes you lazy. people like Galileo Galilei who opposed the churches views on the sun still believe in god. so did Einstein. i feel like an 1/8 of one of these guys lives pretty much covers the progress we've made in both of our lives combined. denial of god is naive and blind. if you want to give credit to the weather and nature like a pantheist. go for it. im not gonna stop you.. even Einstein thinks you have it backwards when he said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."