Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[ranskaldan]

no.... that's not what i'm talking about.

that's the re emergence of recessive genes. no actual genetic change occurs.


i am talking about complete mutation of genes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Maybe you misread my post.

I did. You did say prior generations.

I have given it more thought and come to the conclusion that (without resorting to Creationist nonsense) I have been talking b*****ks for most of this page.

I should follow my own advice to other people and stick to my own scientific field.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I did. You did say prior generations.

I have given it more thought and come to the conclusion that (without resorting to Creationist nonsense) I have been talking b*****ks for most of this page.

I should follow my own advice to other people and stick to my own scientific field.

No problem, man. It happens to everyone once in a while. Rereading what I wrote, I hope I didn't come off as rude; that wasn't my intention. Glad to know ya.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Just helping a fellow traveller improve his arguements but you won't find a creationist that doubts that microevolution exists. You need to tell tham about evidence for macroevolution.

Well, then they should say that. They quite clearly criticise evolution, not just macroevolution. Of course, I get the impression they don't really understand the theory of biological evolution. Anyway, here's some observed instances of macroevolution:

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved." The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart."

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Fruit Flies: Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

[ranskaldan]

thank you!

[Robert]

Here I finally am.

this is all in reply to MarkL,
I'm sorry for the delay Mark.

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

just quote Jer 13:10 and you know the answer.

10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.

God is good to all, but will punish those who won't listen to his words. (etc)
It's like your father is good for you (I hope he is) but he'll punish you when you'll keep on disobeying him.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Gen 1 could be chronological, while Gen 2 is not.
Gen 1 tells us (something) (in fact very little) about the creation.
Gen 2 tells us that all the beasts (which were created by God) were brought in front of Adam.

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Ps 92 tells us about the future while Isa 57 explains the present

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

If you put me in fron of 100 people, and kill me, and I can speak up to 10 last lines, I'm sure every of the people that was in there will know some of my 'last lines' but about nobody will remember all of the correctly anymore.

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

seems like someone got the wrong number.
I have no explanation.

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

Seems like the writer of Samuel II thought God provoked David, while the writer of Chronicles saw satan behind the story. Two different history writings by two different authors.

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

There are two different forms of temptations.
God can tempt if you will be truthfull to Him,
and you can be tempted to sin against God.

Abraham was tempted if he would listen to the orders of God.
Jesus says that God doesn't not tempt people to sin.

More explained:
Abraham would sin if he would NOT obey the 'temptation'
The temptation Jesus talks about is a temptation in which you will sin if you would obey to the temptation.

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

seems like Judas died, but nobody gives a very accurate explanation of how he died. I'm sure there are some creative people among us that can come with a scenario in which both things happen to the same person.

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

as long as Jesus didn't return to earth, nobody has 'finally' been ascended into heaven. On this day God will judge all of us. Don't ask me where Elijah is right now.

etc

etc

etc

etc

can't find any contradictions

so far my reply to MarkL

about the 'grand-father of Jesus' (in reply to Zhu Yuanzhang)
I'll just quote http://www2.bibelcenter.de/bible/e-w...ch/e-wds01.htm

Who is the father of Joseph?
Wolfgang Schneider
Matthew 1:16:
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23:
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The contradiction in the references about the different fathers of Jospeh is caused by the general assumption that the Joseph mentioned in these two gospels is one and the same person, i.e. the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

For a solution to this apparent contradiction one must recognize that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are different in various points. The obviously serve different purposes and show that Jesus Christ is the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew) as well as the son of man (Luke). In Matthew therefore the genealogy leads from Abraham down to Jesus, in Luke however it goes back from Jesus beyond Abraham all the way back to the first man, Adam. In Matthew we have the lineage of Jesus' ancestors through his mother Mary, in Luke however we have the genealogy via his supposed father Joseph. Both genealogies go back to king David, but through different sons of David. In Matthew, the rightful claim of Jesus to the throne of David is emphasized because he was by the descent of his mother Mary of the royal lineage of David (through Solomon); in Luke it is shown that even Joseph, Jesus' "supposed father" was of the house of David (through David's son Nathan).

That Matthew gives the genealogy of the lineage through Mary (and not that of her husband Joseph) becomes clear from the text itself which traces the line from Abraham to Jesus in 3 x 14 generations (Matthew 1:17). If one puts the generations mentioned in their proper order, there are 14 generations from Abraham to David; then from Solomon to Jechonias again 14 generations, but from Salathiel to Christ there would then only 13 (!) generations if the Joseph mentioned was the husband of Mary, but 14 generations if the Joseph mentioned was the father of Mary.

The word for "husband" in Matthew 1:16 in the Greek text (aner) and in the Aramaic text (gavra) first and foremost only designates an adult male person, and it can then according to the context be further defined (cp. Luke 24:19 -- prophet; Acts 3:14 -- murderer; Romans 7:2 -- husband, etc.) In Matthew 1:19, the Aramaic text uses a different word for "husband" (bala) which is the proper word for "husband". From the statement in Matthew 1:17 about the 14 generations in each of the 3 divisions of the genealogy, it is clear that the "Joseph" in Matthew 1:16 ("the husband of Mary") could not have been her husband but must have been her father, and it would have been more accurate to translate the words used in Greek and Aramaic as "father".

This way the records in Matthew are in harmony with each other, and the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke regarding the different fathers of Joseph is solved. Matthew speaks of Joseph, the father of Mary whose father was Jacob; Luke mentions Joseph, the husband of Mary whose father's name was Heli.

Some other explanations given do perhaps explain the different "fathers" of Joseph, but still don't solve the problem with the 14 generations mentioned, and therefore cannot be correct. They also rest on the assumption that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke gives the lineage of Mary. In Luke however, Mary isn't even mentioned in his genealogy, and on the other hand Joseph, Mary's husband, is not mentioned in the genealogy as the above study has shown. In reality, it is just opposite, and in Matthew we have the lineage through Mary, whereas Luke gives the lineage of Jesus's supposed father Joseph.

[Robert]

seems like nobody replied to this line by me (which is a reply to the original topic)

the arc has been found by numerous people on the Ararat.
Besides that do satelite pictures show something strange that could be the arc, buried in ice.

KrazyHorse:

Are we saved through faith or works?

quote:
Ephesians 2: 8, 9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast

quote:
James 2: 24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only

you'll be justified on your works. And believe me, you'll be guilty.
But then you'll be saved through faith. (ie. you're guilty, and you'll be punished for your 'works' But hey, Jesus already took your punishments, thus you're saved)

KrazyHorse: This is serious, because it is not only a disagreement on temporal, but also on spiritual matters.

you want to tell me about it ?

We move on with ranskaldan (new civ3 player ? Welcome to the debate !)

Let's say 100000 mutations occur. Just 1 of them is beneficial.... that fits the word 'most' that you used.
Then the individual(s) with that 1 beneficial mutation will be able to survive longer and better thru simple probability.... and thus will leave more offspring.
Thus, although that initial 1 gene is only found in 0.001% of the population, the proportion will increase...
and increase...
and increase...
until the entire population more or less has this gene.
EDIT: oh yes.... in case you're wondering. the other 99999 mutations which are harmful will fade away because the individuals who have them can't survive as well, thus they will leave less offspring, etc etc.
multiply this by three billion years, which, btw, is a very very long time. There's enough time for many of the genes to change many many times. Genes are what differentiate species.

Let's make it easy, let's say an eye needs 11 gens to work.
In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases. This must have happened all at once, since 'natural selection' will for sure have eliminated all those weak creatures with 'half working' eyes.

Can you even imagine how any organism could ever have evolved into a mamal, with two different sexes ? We're not talking about 11 gens anymore. Will it be 100 ? Let's be nice to you, and act like only 100 gens are involved with the organs that are needed for reproduction. Then 1 out of 100000 to the 100th degree will result into a working mamal.

I'm going to tell you that you need a hell lot more time than only 3 billion years ! For sure if you take into account that the human body consists out of 30000 gens.

In our case, even the most simplistic evolutionair model (one lap, from one-cell organism into human) would require a 30000 gen-change.

that's 1 change out of 100000 to the 30000 degree.
Let's be nice and expect every 'new generation' to appear after one year. (must be quiet accurate avg)

Then we need 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 years to finally have a working human being !

just kidding, this is only 1 out of 100000 to the 1000th degree. Multiply it with 30, and you have the number of years you need for the MOST SIMPLISTIC appearance of humanity (only) by natural selection.

gens made evolution so old fashioned.
You need more than natural selection my friend. Much more !
You need a very creative and briliant brain !

After typing 1000 zero's I feel the temptation to start to sleep !
j/k don't worry about me, I copied / pasted

CyberShy

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
the arc has been found by numerous people on the Ararat.
Besides that do satelite pictures show something strange that could be the arc, buried in ice.

Correction: numerous people claimed that they had found the ark. The ark used by Noah.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Let's make it easy, let's say an eye needs 11 gens to work.
In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases. This must have happened all at once, since 'natural selection' will for sure have eliminated all those weak creatures with 'half working' eyes.

Your argument has been thorough refuted before. The fatal flaw in your argument is that an organ such as the eye must be formed in entirely. This is clearly false. Huge numbers of species have eyes; these eyes are vastly different. Some of the eyes are "half formed," i.e., they aren't as functional as human eyes.

Originally posted by CyberShy
an you even imagine how any organism could ever have evolved into a mamal, with two different sexes ? We're not talking about 11 gens anymore. Will it be 100 ? Let's be nice to you, and act like only 100 gens are involved with the organs that are needed for reproduction. Then 1 out of 100000 to the 100th degree will result into a working mamal.

Hm. A completely flawed understanding of probability. No need even for refutation.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm going to tell you that you need a hell lot more time than only 3 billion years!

That's because your math is flawed

Originally posted by CyberShy
In our case, even the most simplistic evolutionair model (one lap, from one-cell organism into human) would require a 30000 gen-change.

That's not an evolutionary model. That's bollocks.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
We move on with ranskaldan (new civ3 player ? Welcome to the debate !)

mmm thank you.

Let's make it easy, let's say an eye needs 11 gens to work.
In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases. This must have happened all at once, since 'natural selection' will for sure have eliminated all those weak creatures with 'half working' eyes.

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye_stages.html

Can you even imagine how any organism could ever have evolved into a mamal, with two different sexes ? We're not talking about 11 gens anymore. Will it be 100 ? Let's be nice to you, and act like only 100 gens are involved with the organs that are needed for reproduction. Then 1 out of 100000 to the 100th degree will result into a working mamal.

Umm...... actually that is not how it works. see below.

I'm going to tell you that you need a hell lot more time than only 3 billion years ! For sure if you take into account that the human body consists out of 30000 gens.

Our case, even the most simplistic evolutionair model (one lap, from one-cell organism into human) would require a 30000 gen-change.

that's 1 change out of 100000 to the 30000 degree.
Let's be nice and expect every 'new generation' to appear after one year. (must be quiet accurate avg)

Which isn't how evolution works.
It isn't a one-step process.
You aren't taking a bacteria and hoping it would become a human being.
The mutations occur one after another.

It's like..... instead of taking one million dice and rolling them at the same time hoping to get a six all together(which will take you forever). (The chance would be six to the one millionth power.)

It's more like taking one dice and trying to roll six one million times. Which should take about six million tries. Which isn't a lot.

[Lars-E]

The myth of evolution

or if you repeat a lie often enough it will evolve into truth

Ok, what have we got so far?

Two interesting issues have been adressed:

*Beneficial mutations (a term ranskaldan introduced)
Some have tried to reply to this, but all they came up with was experiments in natural selection and one experiment where the immune systems of bacterias repel an hostile attack. There has been nothing, I repeat nothing on beneficial mutations experiments.

*Probability
A Nobel Prize winner in chemistry said the following: “It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it”. This is a top notch scientist. I already told you guys evolution theory had not been proven. Did you listen? No. You guys say: “Evolution theory is not only possible, it is proven!”. Someone needs to hand over his Nobel Prize to one of the teenagers in this thread. (I could make an example to illustrate the probabilities, but I will save it for later).

Conclusion for now: There has been several posts where ‘evolutionists’ in this thread has had a chance to address the above mentioned issues. Not one, I repeat not one of you have adequately answered. So is it gonna happen? Hmmmm…Doesn’t seem like it does it? Unless you have something totally new to cough up?

[aaglo]

Re: The myth of evolution

Originally posted by Lars-E
*Beneficial mutations (a term ranskaldan introduced)
Some have tried to reply to this, but all they came up with was experiments in natural selection and one experiment where the immune systems of bacterias repel an hostile attack. There has been nothing, I repeat nothing on beneficial mutations experiments.

The term "beneficial mutations" is propably older than the person behind the name ranskaldan - it is not his introduction. Some butterflies have beneficially mutated due to the increased pollution: they have changed the colour of their wings to match with the lichen-covered trees (the increase of lichen is due to the pollution).

*Probability
A Nobel Prize winner in chemistry said the following: “It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it”. This is a top notch scientist. I already told you guys evolution theory had not been proven.

If a Nobel Prize winner says that it is impossible to believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. Maybe he just was making a personal statement.

BTW, how propable is this:
Think about the mammal embryos. in the beginning they look all alike. How come? Maybe they are all evolved from one mammal species from 300 million years ago?

[Lars-E]

Re: Re: The myth of evolution

Some butterflies have beneficially mutated due to the increased pollution: they have changed the colour of their wings to match with the lichen-covered trees (the increase of lichen is due to the pollution).

The change in color is proof of mutation? Chamelons change colors too. Quite often. Now if changing colors is proof of mutation than chameleons mutate every day. Do they?

I had breakfast this morning. That proofs I was hungry. But I'm afraid it doesn't. I had breakfast, but was not hungry. There could be a lot of reasons as to why I had breakfast.

If a Nobel Prize winner says that it is impossible to believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

If it had been proven it would be easier for him to believe in, ey? One scientist put it like this: Humans walk around in a state of awe - we won the big lottery - evolution.

You guys are quite contrary to the true believers -evolution scientists saying: It is proven.

( I saw a girl riding a horse yesterday - she was gazing at the sky in a state of awe. Doesn't prove she was thinking she won the big evolution lottery, does it? There could be a million reasons for her mental state...)

Of all the lottery tickets out there you know you'll draw the one marked with evolution. Did you look thru all the tickets beforehand? No. But you just know - someone said it had been proven (no scientist though) so it must be true. We must pledge allegiance to the authority figures, professors, and our nextdoor neighboor, average Joe every day. It is so easy flowing with the stream - copying the thoughts of mainstream. Takes no effort really. And you don't have to think and be independent.

BTW, how propable is this:
Think about the mammal embryos. in the beginning they look all alike. How come? Maybe they are all evolved from one mammal species from 300 million years ago?

Maybe or maybe there are 300 other million reasons?

[aaglo]

Re: Re: Re: The myth of evolution

Originally posted by Lars-E
The change in color is proof of mutation? Chamelons change colors too. Quite often. Now if changing colors is proof of mutation than chameleons mutate every day. Do they?

I don't know, but aren't the chameleons skin cells made that way... that they can change the colouring. The cells on butterfly's wings aren't. Thus they have had mutated (or somebody is painting them) And this mutation had only happened in one century (the wings of the same species used to be white, now they are grey).... or has god been busy painting them?

Maybe or maybe there are 300 other million reasons

Can you give one reason of the possible 300 million reasons (about embryo's similarities)?

[Lars-E]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The myth of evolution

Originally posted by aaglo

I don't know, but aren't the chameleons skin cells made that way... that they can change the colouring. The cells on butterfly's wings aren't. Thus they have had mutated (or somebody is painting them) And this mutation had only happened in one century (the wings of the same species used to be white, now they are grey).... or has god been busy painting them?

In one century. That slow huh? The earth must be trillions of years old.

Can you give one reason of the possible 300 million reasons (about embryo's similarities)?

Here's 3:

Chance?
Corrolation with sunspots?
There is something similar between mammals?

[aaglo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The myth of evolution

Originally posted by Lars-E

Here's 3:
Chance?
Corrolation with sunspots?
There is something similar between mammals?

Chance? ...ok...
Corrolation with sunspots? You've gotta be kidding
There is something similar between mammals? Can you tell me why there are similarities between mammals? The best theory so far is evolution.