Questions for creationists

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Again missunderstanding the stuff I posted. The stats i posted was looking at all the possible proteins that could be formed form any 10 amino acids. I dont see how this is wrong, decitfull or twisting of the facts.

The stuff you posted had a 2000 amino acid protein as the shortest or at least that is how it appeared to me. I didn't say YOU were decietful. I said your source was. It is.

Again it most likely most of my fault for not being clear, thought that people would understand this. Again it is based how many different protiens can be formed form any ten amino acids.

Who cares how many can be formed? It has no relevance to whether ONE or even a dozen of them can self replicate.

Can you explain to me how self reproducing mocules "evolve" as you say? Any studies that have been done on this subject? Have there been any lab experiments with these self reproducing mocules that show that they can change shape over time?

I can say the if the molecule fails to EXACTLY copy itself it will form a mutated version of it. If it can no longer copy itself then it will be selected out. If it can still copy itself it has evolved. What direction it has evolved in is determined by its changed properties. There is no direction to evolution except survival.

I know the evolutionary techniques of selection have been used in research. The link I posted for you about a ribozyme said the molecule had been made by trying many variations testing the variations and keeping the best to vary some more for the next round. Thats evolution. Artificial but real. I don't know of any evolution experiments with self reproducing molecules yet. I had the impression the molecules have all been to specialized for that.

I was never taking about a protein with 2000 amino acids, I said that the cells we see today need 2000 protiens to be able to live and function properly

Sorry I used the wrong number then. What was the length of the protein being used for that number with 113 zeros.

There have been studies done on mitochondrial DNA to see if humans have common acestery. I will post them latter and comment on them.

Obviously we DO have a common ancestery. You are probably thinking of the Eve hypothesis. You could be thinking of tests for specific people though. I know of two such tests. One for Jesse James and one for ancestors of Thomas Jefferson. I think they were both mitochondrial DNA tests. I know the Jefferson test was.

I want to make sure I back up what I say and that it is not missleading information as you think is the casee with very peice of data or info I post Ethelred.

Your sources are misleading you. If you post your sources I can go over the original stuff. Getting it paraphrased stops me from checking the details.

There is a lot of information I have read form scientist that support evolution and I dont think that the info they hgave is twisting of facts. Often times the problem lies in interpeting the evidence. Sometimes scientist think that evidence points to one thing, but latter find out it points to anther. This just happens, because we are human and make misstakes. Also too scientist can be prejudice and missinterpet evidence because of this, on both sides of this debate and when dealing with other fields of study in science.

Always a potential problem. That is why real scientists publish in peer reviewed journals. Creationists NEVER do that. Its one of the reasons they have so many needless errors.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Good thing I'm not a Creationist, or this would lead me to believe that girls do not turn into women, they we're just created like that...

I like that. Good example.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Big Dave


You think you've got questions, you outta see my list.

However there is alot of evidence in favor of the Flood, too. Every race, tribe, people, whatever you want to call them, has a legend of a universal flood. And there's more, but I don't want to get off track from the other stuff I'm supposed to be researching.

David

125

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DaShi


125

Did I miss a memo? Any particular reason you're replying to threads with only numbers?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
In all the examples you state of claiming new species are being formed through evolution, are they really new species?

Some sure are.

Like I said, mutations occur in living things. Most often then not, these mutations are leathal, or at very least harmfull giving the living organism a dissanvantage.

Actually most have no discernable effect. EVERY human on Earth is a mutant. The average person has four mutations each.

These mutations are random accendents. What I was refering to is transional links between spcies

No you are asking for transitional links between Classes. You have been given example of transitions of those as well as species. You simply deny them.

With example of flight. In the fosil record we see no interminate stages of animals with partly formed wings which could have been used for something else.

Actually we have LIVING examples. Flying squirells don't really fly. There is also as gliding snake but I don't think its likely anything more will come of that one. The squirels could given enough time. And if you look at the them you will see they won't look a lot diferent as a fossil from other squirels. They are a potential transitions species and it would NEVER show in the fossil record.

All fosil of flying animals have fully formed wings, and all of them can fly.

Acheaopteryx appears to have been a poor flyer. I wouldn't call it fully formed in comparison to modern flyers. Of course it looks fully formed. It was a successful species. Unsuccessfull species do not produce new species.

I looked at the link Ethelred gave me, have to look at it some more, but the fosil they had in there which many scientist believe is first diansore evolving to bird, acuatlly have feather and other features birds have which are fully formed, no interminate forms.

Each time you are shown an intemediate form you tightly close your eyes and say no.

If birds evolved from reptiles or simlar animals we would see interminate forms of various features we see on bird today, which we dont. They also adimited that they dont really know how the ablilty of fight came into being, and dont have any fosil records to show how it evolved.

Why do you think we would see some sort of nonfunctioning forms. You seem to think there must be some non functioning step in evolution. That cannot happen nor is does anyone expect it.

Gosh someone said they didn't know everything. GOD EXISTS.

That doesn't follow.

Did you know there is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus? None from eyewittnesses at all outside what is in the Bible. Not a single Roman record. Yet he almost certainly did exist.

Same for the first flyers.

Transitional animals between reptiles and fish exist all over the world today.

Amphibians

I am familar with these ape-man, what ever you like to call them, like fosils.

Not ape-man. Australopithecus.

Some of these so called ape-men are based on a single fargement of jaw bone.

Which is more than can be said for Jesus. Still thats bogus. Some ARE just teeth and jaw fragments. Funny how you fixate on that and ignore full skulls and pass right over Lucy which is a fourty percent complete skeleton.

I gave a link to Lucy with a picture of it.

I will site such examples.
They can be variations in a certain species, or type of animal, but it is limited to an extent. Dogs will always be dogs, cats will always be cats, bacterria wil always be baccterria, trees will always be tress. We have a great varties of each kind, but they will never evolve into something else.

Funny how the creationists ALWAYS pull this trick. First a demand for examples of a change of species. When confronted with the evidence, they had been told by didn't exist by other Creationists, they fall back to saying they haven't turned into a different Class. Or a differnent phylum. Or even Kingdom as that bacteria remark shows. Lucy is NEITHER human or ape. Not an apeman but an fully functional australopithcene.

You said you would site examples. You didn't. You started in on something else. I notice things like that.

All species are intermediate. All are in the process of changing to either a new species or an extinct one. Except for a very few. Like the coelocanth. Which is not only a living fossil its ancestors were also the anscestors of all land vertebrates.

Again the best we can say with evolution is that it is a theory, and nothing more. It has many problems with it and much of it is based on guess work and conjecture. Hypothesis mostly. Yet so many claim that evolution is an established fact.

It IS an established fact. The theory is HOW evolution occurs. That it occurs is a fact. Saying it is a theory and nothing more is intended to make it disapear in puff of smoke. To treat it as some sort of wild assed guess. Carefully ignoring just what a theory IS.

To be called a theory it must fit all known data. Evolution has withstood over a hundred years of testing and it still fits the data. That one heck of successfull theory. Newtons Theory of gravity has been replaced by General Relivity because it failed to completely fit the real world. Evolution in the original form that Darwin and Wallace proposed has fit much better but not perfectly. It has been replaced by Neo-Darwinism but essetially it is still around just like Newton's is.

In science a theory is something that WORKS. Other wise it gets tossed. Calling Evolution a mere theory is like saying Special Relativity is a mere theory. The Hydrogen Bomb still blows up.

Also many scientist who support the theory of evolution do admit that the fosil record contains many wholes, missing links.

Holes yes. Missing links is not a word used by biologists. Only creationists use it. The term is transitional species. That there are few is no sign that evolution is a bust. There are some and you were shown them. Even ONE is enough to establish the existance of transitional species.

All I ask is for people to at least see that life being created is not some idea with no basis.

There is NO basis except religion. So why should you expect that request to be accepted.

Why cant you accept the possiblity that life was created? For a truely objective study of the evidence we must be opened to both possiblities.

When I see a reason and evidence then and only then will I consider it a viable idea. Right now there is no reason at all to accept it as a viable concept.

And even if I believed in evolution, I would think the idea that life was created could be a very valid explanation on how life got here.

Its NOT an explanation. It doesn't even begin to fit the evidence. Its an attempt to support a religous belief.

Does not it seems somewhat logical to conclude that something as complicated as life could be created?

If life requires a creator is it not logical then to conclude the Creator needs a creator? That is why it isn't an explanation. It just saying its magic and we can never understand it. You can never get anywhere that way. And you still have a creator that needs a creator.

Big fleas have little fleas.

Creators need creators. Ad infinitum.

[Adalbertus]

Some other pro-evolution argument are the Darwin finches - a range of (I think) 13 sort-of-species of finches which populate relatively closed ares from Europe to far east, who can breed with their neighbouring sort-of-species, but not with far distant ones. This is, of course not a proof of "evolution at work" but it shows that there are no all-time fixed boundaries between species (which you need if you believe in mirco- but not in macroevolution).
To my knowledge, species are separated by their inability to inter-breed, in the sense that the offspring can breed itself (therefore sort-of-species).

Ethelred:
I could go on with the discussion on the position of maths, but I don't see a point in it. You don't arrive at convincing me, I apparently don't arrive at convincing you, Logical Realist seems to be in holidays, nobody else is interested, and we went "slightly" off-topic.

[Jack_www]

By interminate forms of fosils, I mean fosils were we can see the slow porcess were arms to into wings, fish fins slowly turning into arms, with partly formed parts. None that I know of exist. I dont think baceterria mutating is an example of new species emering form old one.

Changes can occur in genes of living things, but are limited to an extent. Major changes in DNA often times are leathal. Yes a mutation can cause the color of your skin to change or that of your hair, but it is still hair and skin.

Even what most would consider a simple cell, is not all that simple. Even single celled organism are extermly complex.
Also is there any evidence showing single cell life evolving first into multicelled life, then in to a form of life with more cells than that? Fish and other forms of life apear sundenly in fosil record after single cell organism.

The term missing link is used by a lot of people, not just creationist. I asked that people be at least open to the possibilty that life was created, yet you reject it because it has religion involved in it, I see. Scientist dont know how things evolved. Maybe they did not.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Jack_www
By interminate forms of fosils, I mean fosils were we can see the slow porcess were arms to into wings, fish fins slowly turning into arms, with partly formed parts. None that I know of exist. I dont think baceterria mutating is an example of new species emering form old one.

Mudskippers.
Archaeopteryx.

Changes can occur in genes of living things, but are limited to an extent. Major changes in DNA often times are leathal. Yes a mutation can cause the color of your skin to change or that of your hair, but it is still hair and skin.

The genes undergo very minor mutations, that over long periods subtly alter the genetic makeup of the population. We're talking millions of years here.

Even what most would consider a simple cell, is not all that simple. Even single celled organism are extermly complex.
Also is there any evidence showing single cell life evolving first into multicelled life, then in to a form of life with more cells than that? Fish and other forms of life apear sundenly in fosil record after single cell organism.

I believe that fossils of cell layers composed of semi-independent cells have been found. I'm not too sure about this so someone else please elaborate.

Single animal or plant cells are pretty complex, but bacteria are much less so.

The term missing link is used by a lot of people, not just creationist. I asked that people be at least open to the possibilty that life was created, yet you reject it because it has religion involved in it, I see. Scientist dont know how things evolved. Maybe they did not.

We don't reject creation because it's got something to do with religion. I mean, since some people worship sun gods, does that mean we reject the existence of the sun? of course not.

No one can be 100% about evolution or creation, since no one was there to see it. The key here is, which one was more likely to have happened? The answer is evolution because there simply is more evidence for it. If some major breakthru is made for creationism i will very willingly switch, but so far, not yet.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Lung
Girl with womanly features - "Sir, why are you perving on my breasts?"

Gibsie - "Don't worry. Your ample bosom's attractiveness is of no concern to me. I am simply conducting a study on human evolution".

Is that what you tell all the girls?

All except my girlfriend

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus


Ethelred:
I could go on with the discussion on the position of maths, but I don't see a point in it. You don't arrive at convincing me, I apparently don't arrive at convincing you, Logical Realist seems to be in holidays, nobody else is interested, and we went "slightly" off-topic.

I don't see a point in it either. You never try to support yourself. Without something more than handwaving you will never convince me. This may an unprovable point for either of us but I really don't see any reason to say math is a product of humans. I am pretty sure ANY inteligent species with a modicum of logical talent would come up with similar mathamatical theories. Most people think that math is the universal language. People understood the Mayan calendar long before we could decifer the language.

I would be interested to see a response on this by Jon Miller. He is going to be doing post grad studies on math and physics next.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
By interminate forms of fosils, I mean fosils were we can see the slow porcess were arms to into wings, fish fins slowly turning into arms, with partly formed parts. None that I know of exist. I dont think baceterria mutating is an example of new species emering form old one.

Of course you don't think of it that way. It would show you are wrong.

I said you thought that way about intermediates didn't I? Sure is nice to have confirmation. So again I will point out that its WRONG. Partly formed parts are for losers in the evolution. Only parts that function in some way will be conserved and perhaps modified. Each time you are shown an intermediate form you simply deny that it is one by saying it works as is.

I notice you completly ignored my comments on flying squiralls. Didn't want to deal with obvious case of an intermediate form I see. You don't like evidence. Why do you bother demanding it when you deny its existence or like the squiralls just pretend that it wasn't mentioned.

Changes can occur in genes of living things, but are limited to an extent. Major changes in DNA often times are leathal. Yes a mutation can cause the color of your skin to change or that of your hair, but it is still hair and skin.

A big enough mutation and it ISN'T skin. Or hair. Hair becomes horn. Some people have scaley skin. If that became advantagous it would be enhanced over time.

Or lose skin becomes wings as is the case for the squirell that you carefully avoided.

Even what most would consider a simple cell, is not all that simple. Even single celled organism are extermly complex.

I take it you are still avoiding thinking about bacteria.

Also is there any evidence showing single cell life evolving first into multicelled life, then in to a form of life with more cells than that?

Yes. Did you check the links I posted for the cyanobacteria. No of course you didn't. They showed the bacteria linking to form colonies. Once a species does that it can become advantagous to speialize eventually after it develops a way to share genes.

Examples

Sponges are true multicellular colonies. Only specialization is lacking

Portugues Man-o-War also multicellular colonies but they ARE specialized.

And the best example that convers the entire spectrum of your question is shown by fungi. The are single celled life forms. They also specialize under the right conditions collect into a plant like object and only a small percentage actually repoduce. Mushrooms. Also slime molds do this but not so obviously.

Fish and other forms of life apear sundenly in fosil record after single cell organism.

WRONG. Just plain wrong. Do try that link I gave. You just plain don't know what your talking about.

Bacteria was BILLIONS of years before fishes.

Edicarian life was LONG before the first fish.

The Bugess shale life was significantly before the first fish. There is one flat worm there that looks very much like it might be the ancestor of all vertebrates.

Here is that link again. Do try clicking on it. It won't infest you with mutating viriis.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/

Now for some examples via that site.

Achaen life first formed as single celled life at least 3.5 billion years ago.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html

First eukaryotic cells appear 1.8 billion years ago

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/proterozoic.html

Multicellur life first shows up around 650 millions ago in the Vendian Period.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html

First hard bodied life showed up in the Cambrian. Best example are from the Burgess Shale formation. The fine grain structure even alows for soft bodied species to show.

General on Cambrian

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

Burgess Shale

http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/

First true vertabrates showed up 500 million years ago as jawless fishes. First fishes with jaws came 100 million years later.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/vertintro.html

Unfortunatly they seem to have left the vertabrates somewhat unfinished. Some of the links are to sites under construction. Did that a year ago as well.

Ahh here is one that worked there with more detail.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/chordatasy.html

Really you were only off by 3 billion years. Much better than the ICR can manage.

The term missing link is used by a lot of people, not just creationist. I asked that people be at least open to the possibilty that life was created, yet you reject it because it has religion involved in it, I see. Scientist dont know how things evolved. Maybe they did not.

Scientist DO know how things evolved. They don't know EVERY detail and never will without a time machine. Its YOU that don't how things evolved. I do. Just not everything.

I don't reject your thinking because religion is involved. I reject because there is NO evidence to support it. Megatons against it and there is no non-religous reason to believe it. Religion isn't merely involved in Creationism it is the ONLY REASON for believing it. Thats not good enough. I want evidence. I have the entire universe backing my thinking. You have a book written long ago by ancient men that knew nothing of science.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Ethelred

You have a book written long ago by ancient men that knew nothing of science.

You mean............IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN GOD?!!?!!!

It says so in the bible, so it must be true

[Ethelred]

I thought about it before I put that line in there. It tends to torque off the believers. I felt it was appropriate though.

I have been pretty darn gentle on this thread. I have tossed out quite a few things that I decided not to post after writing them because they might be needlessly inflammatory however true they were. There are limits though to just how lightly I can tread on anyones beliefs.

As far as I know there is no mention in the Bible that the Bible is the word of god. The Trinity isn't in there either and I am sure on that one. That was invented at the Nicene council although it did not become official dogma for another 70 years or so.

I mention the Trinity to give an example of an absolutely required belief for most christians that has no real basis in the Bible. THe Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is one of the few christian churches that doesn't believe in the Trinity. Thats the official name for the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Jack_www]

Some info I wanted to post to support some of the stuff I have been trying to say.

Life -How Did it get here? By Evolution or by Creation?
pp99-111

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?
THERE is another difficulty facing the theory of evolution. Just how is it supposed to have happened? What is a basic mechanism that is presumed to have enabled one type of living thing to evolve into another type? Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants.
2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia. 1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution. 2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.” 3
3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.” 4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.” 5
4 It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” 6 But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.
5 How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.” 7
Are They Helpful or Harmful?
6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.” 8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.” 9
7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica. 10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined. 11
8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.” 12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.” 13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.
9 In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.” 14 But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?
10 Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.” 15 Thus, ask yourself: Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?
Do Mutations Produce Anything New?
11 Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.
12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.” 16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.
13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.
The Fruit Fly Experiments
14 Few mutation experiments can equal the extensive ones conducted on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.
15 After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” 17 Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.
16 The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.” 18
17 Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.” 19
The Peppered Moth
18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.” 20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.” 21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.
19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.
20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.” 22
21 The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.” 23
22 The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.
“According to Their Kinds”
23 The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”
24 Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.” 24
25 Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” 25 So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.
26 Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.” 26 And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity.” 27 Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.” 28 And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.” 29
27 The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.
28 Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.
Not a Basis for Evolution
29 The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’” 30
30 Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.” 31
31 The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.” 32

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?
1. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.
2. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.
3. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.
4. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 250.
5. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 27.
6. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 92.
7. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.
8. Cosmos, p. 31.
9. Chromosomes and Genes, p. 127.
10. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.
11. The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
12. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.
13. Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.
14. The Wellsprings of Life, by Isaac Asimov, 1960, p. 139.
15. Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126.
16. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 6, p. 332.
17. Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.
18. Scientific American, “Inducible Repair of DNA,” by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72.
19. Darwin Retried, by Norman Macbeth, 1971, p. 33.
20. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1970, Vol. 20, p. 2706.
21. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.
22. On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.
23. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5.
24. On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9.
25. Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, p. 884.
26. Molecules to Living Cells, “Simple Inorganic Molecules to Complex Free-Living Cells,” Scientific American, Section I, introduction by Philip C. Hanawalt, 1980, p. 3.
27. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, by Lynn Margulis, 1981, p. 87.
28. Scientific American, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” by Edouard Kellenberger, December 1966, p. 32.
29. Los Angeles Times, “Fishing for Evolution’s Answer,” by Irving S. Bengelsdorf, November 2, 1967.
30. The Orion Book of Evolution, by Jean Rostand, 1961, p. 79.
31. Science Today, “Evolution,” by C. H. Waddington, 1961, p. 38.
32. On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, by John N. Moore, December 27, 1971, p. 5.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I thought about it before I put that line in there. It tends to torque off the believers. I felt it was appropriate though.

I have been pretty darn gentle on this thread. I have tossed out quite a few things that I decided not to post after writing them because they might be needlessly inflammatory however true they were. There are limits though to just how lightly I can tread on anyones beliefs.

As far as I know there is no mention in the Bible that the Bible is the word of god. The Trinity isn't in there either and I am sure on that one. That was invented at the Nicene council although it did not become official dogma for another 70 years or so.

I mention the Trinity to give an example of an absolutely required belief for most christians that has no real basis in the Bible. THe Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is one of the few christian churches that doesn't believe in the Trinity. Thats the official name for the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I dont believe in Trinity etheir. I would like to state that some of the stuff I have posted may not have come out just the way I planed. I would also like to point out that the very least I am looking for is for people just to be open to possiblity that life was created, if nothing else.