When the Pope Dies

[barackattack]

The theory... is a scientific fact.

Theory: 'a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something'

Fact: 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'

[natty dread]

i'm not a creationist, and there's just no proof of evolution, because it can't happen. a species can not evolve into another speicies. mutations happen, mutation does not equal evolution. a fly is still a fly, no matter if it wings mutate to be bigger or smaller, it will never suddenly become a dragonfly, not even in a million year, and not even in a bazillion years, it will not happen, it's that simple. a gene can only mutate so much.

Appeal to ridicule. Just because you don't understand how something could happen, doesn't make it impossible.

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... he-lab.htm

If you stack up enough mutations on an organism, eventually you will have a different organism. There's no defined "line" to cross when it becomes a different "species", it's a continuous process and even small changes take millions of years.

also, if evolution was possible, then logic would dictate creating life out of nowhere would be possible too.

It is. There's already huge research going into creating artificial organisms, and partial success has already been achieved. I can find the relevant study for you, if you promise to read it with an open mind.

scientists were never even able to evolve even rapidly reproducing lifeforms like bacteria into anything even remotely more advanced.

Yes they have, see 1st paragraph.

bacteria mutate to adapt, yes, but that is in no way anywhere close to evolving to more advanced lifeforms.

Yes it is. A lifeform that is better adapted to it's environment compared to it's ancestor is by definition an advanced lifeform.

no matter how much they mutate, they still remain bacteria, in fact, they even are limited to stay the same type of bacteria, they mutate only slightly, like all other lifeforms.

Sounds like something you've memorized from some crackpot ID site.

See 1st paragraph.

human for example an mutate their skincolor, eye color, hair color, size, shape of nose/ears/etc. (some of those even during life) but they will never evolve into a being with wings, whiskers, gills, or 4 arms.

They can, if their environment warrants it. However, it would take a long time. And I don't really see what kind of circumstances could require our species to need wings, but it could happen, theoretically.

See, you don't have any proof for anything you assert. You just keep repeating the crackpot creationist talking points, and they're all been debunked by proper science ages ago. It always amazes me how willingly ignorant one has to be to support their religious views.

i'm the one ignorant? you're making stuff up. science proves evolution wrong, archaeology proves the bible correct.

keep wishing, god boy.

i know which side i chose, i do respect your opinion, but don't make stuff up and sell it as truth, cuz science in no way proved evolution right.

Sorry but yes it has.

The most powerful evidence for common descent includes:

Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.

DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.

Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.

Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.

Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.

Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.

Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

good to see at least some people don't think the bible is just an ancient version of LOTR.

Haha, that's actually a really good comparison. Is there any reason why we shouldn't think of it as such?

[zimmah]

It is genetically impossible for 2 people to spawn an entire population of humans. Not enough genetic diversity.

those 2 humans were directly created by god and designed to be perfect, they did not have flaws initially (they only got flaws after their sin, as a punishment of their sin). their DNA was still close to perfect even after their sin, and over time the DNA of their descendants started to be more and more flawed. Gene mutations could have happened in all those years since then.

Where in the bible is all of this mentioned? I searched, but I didn't find a single mention for DNA in the whole bible.

Also, genetics doesn't work like that.

There is a specific passage in one of the books of the Torah (can't remember the exact spot) where God instructs the Israelities that they are no longer permitted to marry a person who is closely related to them. This has always indicated to me that once that point was reached, God stopped protecting the genetic line from becoming contaminated from relations with close family members and that there was enough variation in the genetic information to decrease the chance of an exponential growth of genetic defects.

Sadly, there isn't a single bit of evidence that would support your claim. All you have is some ancient fairy tales that you cherry-pick for anecdotes that sort of say something to the effect of what you want to believe. You're just cherry-picking stuff to support your pre-conceived beliefs.

The theory of evolution, however, is a scientific fact. There's loads and loads of empirical scientific evidence supporting it.

trust me, i wouldn't believe a word in the bible if it wasn't that perfect in the way it's written by that many persons in the span of 1000's of years, and everything fits so well together. it's humanly impossible to create a book as accurate as the bible even if 1 person wrote it, the more people contributed to it, the more statistically impossible it would become to create it. yet it still exist, even after countless attempts to completely destroy it. Also, a lot of other ancient books of ancient cultures as well as archaeological finds confirm at least parts of the bible (corresponding to time and place of said document or finding). the bible as a whole has a clear message, if you at least take the time to understand the real message of the bible. It's not just a book, it's the way to live real life, as god meant it to be. The truth frees you and i can confirm that it does. I have seen both sides of live, and i prefer the life of a religious man. Trust me, i'm smart enough to see the difference, and f it wasn't crystal clear to me that my choice is the right choice, i would have never chosen this way of live. sadly, there's no way i can convince you, but if you don't want to believe, you're free to live life as you want it, so enjoy. the fact that you're reading this topic though suggest that you are actually unsure of what to think, so i encourage you to think about it. there is a god who cares for you, he loves you, he wants you to be happy, even if you don't believe in him.


@timminz, there's no proof i evolved from a lower life form, there's not even proof that's technically possible. belief it if you want, but seriously, you have to come up with something better to convince me. i bet you can't even give me 1 scientific evidence of 1 life-form evolving into another life-form, even after all those years of research. and seriously, i if you don't think the earth and the universe and life itself are proof of a higher intelligent being, i don't know what is. proof is all around you, i can't help it you don't want to see it. i don't mind either, if it's your choice, but out of all things, pick something believable to believe in, and life up to what you believe in too. if you believe in evolution, shouldn't you fight for the survival of humankind, and kill everyone who would endanger humankind in any way, for the better cause? which would mean hospitals would have to go altogether, anyone with any serious mental or physical problems would need to die as well, or at least prevent from reproducing (dying would be the better solution, to free up food supply for stronger individuals). also, it would be best to spread your genes widely, so strong people should have sex with as many people as humanly possible. f you live your life like that, then you're a true evolutionist. otherwise you're not even defending your religion. (evolutionist are religious too).

[zimmah]

i'm not a creationist, and there's just no proof of evolution, because it can't happen. a species can not evolve into another speicies. mutations happen, mutation does not equal evolution. a fly is still a fly, no matter if it wings mutate to be bigger or smaller, it will never suddenly become a dragonfly, not even in a million year, and not even in a bazillion years, it will not happen, it's that simple. a gene can only mutate so much.

Appeal to ridicule. Just because you don't understand how something could happen, doesn't make it impossible.

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... he-lab.htm

If you stack up enough mutations on an organism, eventually you will have a different organism. There's no defined "line" to cross when it becomes a different "species", it's a continuous process and even small changes take millions of years.

also, if evolution was possible, then logic would dictate creating life out of nowhere would be possible too.

It is. There's already huge research going into creating artificial organisms, and partial success has already been achieved. I can find the relevant study for you, if you promise to read it with an open mind.

scientists were never even able to evolve even rapidly reproducing lifeforms like bacteria into anything even remotely more advanced.

Yes they have, see 1st paragraph.

bacteria mutate to adapt, yes, but that is in no way anywhere close to evolving to more advanced lifeforms.

Yes it is. A lifeform that is better adapted to it's environment compared to it's ancestor is by definition an advanced lifeform.

no matter how much they mutate, they still remain bacteria, in fact, they even are limited to stay the same type of bacteria, they mutate only slightly, like all other lifeforms.

Sounds like something you've memorized from some crackpot ID site.

See 1st paragraph.

human for example an mutate their skincolor, eye color, hair color, size, shape of nose/ears/etc. (some of those even during life) but they will never evolve into a being with wings, whiskers, gills, or 4 arms.

They can, if their environment warrants it. However, it would take a long time. And I don't really see what kind of circumstances could require our species to need wings, but it could happen, theoretically.

See, you don't have any proof for anything you assert. You just keep repeating the crackpot creationist talking points, and they're all been debunked by proper science ages ago. It always amazes me how willingly ignorant one has to be to support their religious views.

i'm the one ignorant? you're making stuff up. science proves evolution wrong, archaeology proves the bible correct.

keep wishing, god boy.

i know which side i chose, i do respect your opinion, but don't make stuff up and sell it as truth, cuz science in no way proved evolution right.

Sorry but yes it has.

The most powerful evidence for common descent includes:

Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.

DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.

Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.

Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.

Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.

Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.

Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

good to see at least some people don't think the bible is just an ancient version of LOTR.

Haha, that's actually a really good comparison. Is there any reason why we shouldn't think of it as such?

that's what you want to believe, it has never been proven.

[natty dread]

The theory... is a scientific fact.

Theory: 'a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something'

Fact: 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'

Nope, fail. But keep on trying, it's cute to watch you struggle.

A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories are large bodies of work that are the products of many contributors over time. They unify the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

"Theory" is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. Although in common parlance anything that attempts to describe a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that can be used to predict future observations.

[zimmah]

natty, did you ever study the bible with an open mind?

id you always believe in evolution, or was there some point in your live that you decided not to believe in god anymore? and if so, what was the reason?

[barackattack]

Verbal reasoning fail.

A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that can be used to predict future observations.

This is not the same as a fact. By a long way. As you say yourself, a 'theory' is an 'explanation for a series of facts'. It is not a fact.

Well-substantiated is not the same as fact. You might be interseted in Popper's Theory of Falsification. It relates directly to everything you're saying.

[natty dread]

natty, did you ever study the bible with an open mind?

id you always believe in evolution, or was there some point in your live that you decided not to believe in god anymore? and if so, what was the reason?

Zimmah, did you ever study the Flying Spaghetti Monster with an open mind?

Did you always believe in god, or was there some point in your life that you decided not to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster anymore? And if so, what was the reason?

[barackattack]

natty, you're fairly hateful. Ever considered chilling out and leaving people be?

[Symmetry]

Verbal reasoning fail.

A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that can be used to predict future observations.

This is not the same as a fact. By a long way. As you say yourself, a 'theory' is an 'explanation for a series of facts'. It is not a fact.

Well-substantiated is not the same as fact. You might be interseted in Popper's Theory of Falsification. It relates directly to everything you're saying.

But that's just a theory. How can you know that it relates directly to everything he's saying?

[barackattack]

But that's just a theory. How can you know that it relates directly to everything he's saying?

You've almost got the hang of this.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

zimmahs blithering idiocy

It is genetically impossible for 2 people to spawn an entire population of humans. Not enough genetic diversity.

those 2 humans were directly created by god and designed to be perfect, they did not have flaws initially (they only got flaws after their sin, as a punishment of their sin). their DNA was still close to perfect even after their sin, and over time the DNA of their descendants started to be more and more flawed. Gene mutations could have happened in all those years since then. Gene mutations are proven, evolution can not be proven, because evolution does not exist. there's a limit to how much something can mutate before it becomes completely defective.

i'm not a creationist, and there's just no proof of evolution, because it can't happen. a species can not evolve into another speicies. mutations happen, mutation does not equal evolution. a fly is still a fly, no matter if it wings mutate to be bigger or smaller, it will never suddenly become a dragonfly, not even in a million year, and not even in a bazillion years, it will not happen, it's that simple. a gene can only mutate so much.

also, if evolution was possible, then logic would dictate creating life out of nowhere would be possible too. then why is it human can not create life (i'm not speaking of having babies or cloning, i am talking about creating life out of nowhere, or even taking 'non-complex' life and 'evolve' it into complex life.)

scientists were never even able to evolve even rapidly reproducing lifeforms like bacteria into anything even remotely more advanced. bacteria mutate to adapt, yes, but that is in no way anywhere close to evolving to more advanced lifeforms. no matter how much they mutate, they still remain bacteria, in fact, they even are limited to stay the same type of bacteria, they mutate only slightly, like all other lifeforms. human for example an mutate their skincolor, eye color, hair color, size, shape of nose/ears/etc. (some of those even during life) but they will never evolve into a being with wings, whiskers, gills, or 4 arms. i'm the one ignorant? you're making stuff up. science proves evolution wrong, archaeology proves the bible correct. i know which side i chose, i do respect your opinion, but don't make stuff up and sell it as truth, cuz science in no way proved evolution right.

and @ night strike, you may be very well correct in that conclusion. (i think you're reffering to leviticus chapter 18 btw.)

good to see at least some people don't think the bible is just an ancient version of LOTR.

@timminz, there's no proof i evolved from a lower life form, there's not even proof that's technically possible. belief it if you want, but seriously, you have to come up with something better to convince me. i bet you can't even give me 1 scientific evidence of 1 life-form evolving into another life-form, even after all those years of research. and seriously, i if you don't think the earth and the universe and life itself are proof of a higher intelligent being, i don't know what is. proof is all around you, i can't help it you don't want to see it. i don't mind either, if it's your choice, but out of all things, pick something believable to believe in, and life up to what you believe in too. if you believe in evolution, shouldn't you fight for the survival of humankind, and kill everyone who would endanger humankind in any way, for the better cause? which would mean hospitals would have to go altogether, anyone with any serious mental or physical problems would need to die as well, or at least prevent from reproducing (dying would be the better solution, to free up food supply for stronger individuals). also, it would be best to spread your genes widely, so strong people should have sex with as many people as humanly possible. f you live your life like that, then you're a true evolutionist. otherwise you're not even defending your religion. (evolutionist are religious too)

that's what you want to believe, it has never been proven.

Wow. Just wow. Even someone as religious (faithful if that's preferable) as Player has acknowledged evolution. How does it feel walking into a thread spewing forth utter crap about a subject you obviously know nothing about? I'm amazed, really. Let's assume for the sake of arguing that you know nothing about cars. Do you walk up to the stranded car and just tell the owner what's wrong? You can't even name the parts. This is what you're doing.

Here's a nice little slideshow covering the Domestication as a Model of Speciation experiment that's been running for 50 years. The scientists captured some foxes over 50 years ago, selected by Generation Zero's tameness. The experimenters did no training, just kept the foxes in cages and fed them. The 10th generation had only 18% that were class I, or almost completely tame. Currently 80% of the fox population is class I, and have distinct phenotype differences from their originals; curled tails and ears, different coloring (all of these btw would reduce their chances of surviving in their natural habitat), etc etc. This is the domestication of the wolf in scale, in as little as 50 years.

-TG

[Night Strike]

Here's a nice little slideshow covering the Domestication as a Model of Speciation experiment that's been running for 50 years. The scientists captured some foxes over 50 years ago, selected by Generation Zero's tameness. The experimenters did no training, just kept the foxes in cages and fed them. The 10th generation had only 18% that were class I, or almost completely tame. Currently 80% of the fox population is class I, and have distinct phenotype differences from their originals; curled tails and ears, different coloring (all of these btw would reduce their chances of surviving in their natural habitat), etc etc. This is the domestication of the wolf in scale, in as little as 50 years.

-TG

And yet they're still foxes/wolves (don't know which as you used both in you comment). It doesn't matter whether they look or behave the same: they're still the same species. They didn't turn into a cat (or whatever would be the next species in the chain).

[natty dread]

It takes a very long time for a species to evolve into distinctly different species, counted in millions of years.

Just because you can't take a monkey and expect it to become a human in a few decades doesn't disprove evolution. There's no distinction between micro/macro, if you stack enough of small changes together it eventually adds up to a big change.

The whole "micro but not macro" ID crackpottery is imbecile, and anyone who promotes such idiocy has the mental capacity of a cucumber. It's like saying "you can paint your house, but it's impossible to build a second floor to it".

[barackattack]

Just because you can't take a monkey and expect it to become a human in a few decades doesn't disprove evolution.

And theorising about evolution over millions of years doesn't disprove Creationism.

Your arguments are full of logical fallacies which you seem unwilling to acknowledge or address.

'Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies.' - Nietzsche

[Symmetry]

It takes a very long time for a species to evolve into distinctly different species, counted in millions of years.

Just because you can't take a monkey and expect it to become a human in a few decades doesn't disprove evolution. There's no distinction between micro/macro, if you stack enough of small changes together it eventually adds up to a big change.

The whole "micro but not macro" ID crackpottery is imbecile, and anyone who promotes such idiocy has the mental capacity of a cucumber. It's like saying "you can paint your house, but it's impossible to build a second floor to it".

Indeed, and inter-species hybrids can obviously produce new species even on a short term scale too. Loganberries are a hybrid species, for example.

You can make a new species in your back garden, essentially.

[natty dread]

Just because you can't take a monkey and expect it to become a human in a few decades doesn't disprove evolution.

And theorising about evolution over millions of years doesn't disprove Creationism.

Thankfully the burden of proof is not on me, seeing how creationism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no scientifical basis whatsoever.

[barackattack]

Thankfully the burden of proof is not on me, seeing how creationism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no scientifical basis whatsoever.

If it's unfalsifiable then all your screaming 'Creationism is LIES' is worthless. By your own definition you can't actually prove that it's lies.

And seeing as religion is not science it is worthless to poke holes in religion for being unscientific.

Neither Evolution nor Creationism can be definitively proven or disproven. That's just how it is and all your bile won't change that.

[BigBallinStalin]

The whole concept of sin is laughable. The way it is defined, there's no way anyone could ever live without committing some sin. Then the church comes along and tells you to surrender all your critical thought and buy the magical jesus cure.

It's a perfect business! First, create an imaginary need: you're all sinners, you need to get rid of the sin.
Second, sell an imaginary solution: accept Jesus and your sin doesn't matter anymore. And then you're hooked.

Third, get an income tax exemption.

Fourth, let the donations flow in.

Fifth, molesting little boys is a-ok.

Sixth, steal babies and sell them for $150,000 each.

[pimpdave]

And yet they're still foxes/wolves (don't know which as you used both in you comment). It doesn't matter whether they look or behave the same: they're still the same species. They didn't turn into a cat (or whatever would be the next species in the chain).

[chang50]

Hang on the creatards might be right,doesn't their existence as obviously poorly evolved creatures prove that in their cases evolution never happened.

[Army of GOD]

The whole concept of sin is laughable. The way it is defined, there's no way anyone could ever live without committing some sin. Then the church comes along and tells you to surrender all your critical thought and buy the magical jesus cure.

It's a perfect business! First, create an imaginary need: you're all sinners, you need to get rid of the sin.
Second, sell an imaginary solution: accept Jesus and your sin doesn't matter anymore. And then you're hooked.

Third, get an income tax exemption.

Fourth, let the donations flow in.

Fifth, molesting little boys is a-ok.

Sixth, steal babies and sell them for $150,000 each.

Seventh, KILL THE MUSLIMS

[natty dread]

If it's unfalsifiable then all your screaming 'Creationism is LIES' is worthless.

I don't think you know what unfalsifiable means in this context.

[zimmah]

zimmahs blithering idiocy

It is genetically impossible for 2 people to spawn an entire population of humans. Not enough genetic diversity.

those 2 humans were directly created by god and designed to be perfect, they did not have flaws initially (they only got flaws after their sin, as a punishment of their sin). their DNA was still close to perfect even after their sin, and over time the DNA of their descendants started to be more and more flawed. Gene mutations could have happened in all those years since then. Gene mutations are proven, evolution can not be proven, because evolution does not exist. there's a limit to how much something can mutate before it becomes completely defective.

i'm not a creationist, and there's just no proof of evolution, because it can't happen. a species can not evolve into another speicies. mutations happen, mutation does not equal evolution. a fly is still a fly, no matter if it wings mutate to be bigger or smaller, it will never suddenly become a dragonfly, not even in a million year, and not even in a bazillion years, it will not happen, it's that simple. a gene can only mutate so much.

also, if evolution was possible, then logic would dictate creating life out of nowhere would be possible too. then why is it human can not create life (i'm not speaking of having babies or cloning, i am talking about creating life out of nowhere, or even taking 'non-complex' life and 'evolve' it into complex life.)

scientists were never even able to evolve even rapidly reproducing lifeforms like bacteria into anything even remotely more advanced. bacteria mutate to adapt, yes, but that is in no way anywhere close to evolving to more advanced lifeforms. no matter how much they mutate, they still remain bacteria, in fact, they even are limited to stay the same type of bacteria, they mutate only slightly, like all other lifeforms. human for example an mutate their skincolor, eye color, hair color, size, shape of nose/ears/etc. (some of those even during life) but they will never evolve into a being with wings, whiskers, gills, or 4 arms. i'm the one ignorant? you're making stuff up. science proves evolution wrong, archaeology proves the bible correct. i know which side i chose, i do respect your opinion, but don't make stuff up and sell it as truth, cuz science in no way proved evolution right.

and @ night strike, you may be very well correct in that conclusion. (i think you're reffering to leviticus chapter 18 btw.)

good to see at least some people don't think the bible is just an ancient version of LOTR.

@timminz, there's no proof i evolved from a lower life form, there's not even proof that's technically possible. belief it if you want, but seriously, you have to come up with something better to convince me. i bet you can't even give me 1 scientific evidence of 1 life-form evolving into another life-form, even after all those years of research. and seriously, i if you don't think the earth and the universe and life itself are proof of a higher intelligent being, i don't know what is. proof is all around you, i can't help it you don't want to see it. i don't mind either, if it's your choice, but out of all things, pick something believable to believe in, and life up to what you believe in too. if you believe in evolution, shouldn't you fight for the survival of humankind, and kill everyone who would endanger humankind in any way, for the better cause? which would mean hospitals would have to go altogether, anyone with any serious mental or physical problems would need to die as well, or at least prevent from reproducing (dying would be the better solution, to free up food supply for stronger individuals). also, it would be best to spread your genes widely, so strong people should have sex with as many people as humanly possible. f you live your life like that, then you're a true evolutionist. otherwise you're not even defending your religion. (evolutionist are religious too)

that's what you want to believe, it has never been proven.

Wow. Just wow. Even someone as religious (faithful if that's preferable) as Player has acknowledged evolution. How does it feel walking into a thread spewing forth utter crap about a subject you obviously know nothing about? I'm amazed, really. Let's assume for the sake of arguing that you know nothing about cars. Do you walk up to the stranded car and just tell the owner what's wrong? You can't even name the parts. This is what you're doing.

Here's a nice little slideshow covering the Domestication as a Model of Speciation experiment that's been running for 50 years. The scientists captured some foxes over 50 years ago, selected by Generation Zero's tameness. The experimenters did no training, just kept the foxes in cages and fed them. The 10th generation had only 18% that were class I, or almost completely tame. Currently 80% of the fox population is class I, and have distinct phenotype differences from their originals; curled tails and ears, different coloring (all of these btw would reduce their chances of surviving in their natural habitat), etc etc. This is the domestication of the wolf in scale, in as little as 50 years.

-TG

like i said, genetic mutations does not equal evolution.

they won't become dogs or cats or rabbits, no matter how long you keep feeding them and caging them, they won't.

their behavior might change, their appearance might change, those things are proven to happen. but it does not prove evolution, nor does it disprove the existence of god.

obviously life has been created to adapt to their environment, within boundaries.

[zimmah]

It takes a very long time for a species to evolve into distinctly different species, counted in millions of years.

Just because you can't take a monkey and expect it to become a human in a few decades doesn't disprove evolution. There's no distinction between micro/macro, if you stack enough of small changes together it eventually adds up to a big change.

The whole "micro but not macro" ID crackpottery is imbecile, and anyone who promotes such idiocy has the mental capacity of a cucumber. It's like saying "you can paint your house, but it's impossible to build a second floor to it".

that's just as valid as saying 1+1 is 2 so in a million years 1+1 will be 3, it will slowly chance to becoming 2,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and for some reason it keeps on going to become 3.

species are species, mutations happen, evolution is a myth based on mutations, but seriously, mutating genes do not prove the evolution from one specie to another. i know genes mutate over time given the condition, it happens all around you, you don't need to tell me those things, but i just don't see the logic in that it would proof evolution over design.

If you walk around on an island you assumed was uninhabited and suddenly you see a stone tablet with words on it, would you assume it's just some random occurring and the letters do not mean anything? just because you don't want to believe someone wrote it down years ago? that's basically the same you're doing right now. How can something as complex as life itself just be created out of nowhere? it has never even been proven that even a single cell can not suddenly appear. let alone a complete lifeform. even lifeforms that scientist call 'simple lifeforms' are so extremely complex that the best scientist ca not even come close to creating them, let alone be possible to create out of thin air. besides, even if scientist would be able to create life some way or another, wouldn't that also prove that some input from outside is needed to form life?

and what about the universe, i mean, just take a look only at our solar system. the sun is just about big enough, stable enough to sustain life, and the distance we have to it is just about perfect to sustain a temperate climate that is able to sustain life in almost any part of the globe, on top of that our moon is exceptionally large, which is good because it keeps the rotation and the axis of the earth stable, and also gives us tides which is good. Also, our atmosphere, magnetic field, and the big outer planets like Jupiter keep dangers from outer space away from earth. those 3 things shield us from most comet impacts and cosmic rays that would otherwise totally destroy life on earth. ye, that's pretty much all random luck right?

the chances of that to happen are even lower then the chances of you throwing straight 6's on your next million games. so tell me when that happens.