- This topic is empty.
- Posts
T8,
Starting a conversation with a co worker today regarding evolution. He started talking about random mutation ect. ect…so I asked him to give me a modern evolution example and he said merca.
Would you consider merca to be or can be considered modern evolution?
Not sure what Merca is. I know that viruses mutate, but they stay viruses however.
Noah took one pair of each kind. So a pair of cats could in time produce all the cat species we see today. But they stay cats no matter what.
No one has proof of one kind changing into another kind. Just some fossils that they connect with their imaginations.
Right, and sorry for the misspelling of MRSA, phonics!
It is consider one of the super bugs.
I think he is saying that the virus ‘evolved’ itself to resist treatment of anti biotics. Hence his answer to modern evolution.
So there is a change but only a change in the original, the change did not create another.Now I’m not a darwin fan at all. The story of the great flood is all throughout history of different cultures.
I know this may be naive but why isn’t metamorphosis more of a example of what most go on about with evolution?
Princess.
MRSA is evidence that adaptation occurs and nothing else.
It does not prove a mutation took place as no one knows whether or not some individual MRSA bacteria were antibiotic resistant previously. The evidence seems to reveal there was a low number of such individuals if they existed. Those few individuals reproduced because they survived and those became to dominate their society. There is probably still individuals in societies of MRSA that are antibiotic resistant that are themselves not antibiotic resistant.
Mutation does occur but he used a bad example. The various dog breeds reveal that as breeders saw a mutation they liked and then bred for that mutation. That example reveals selection as well.
Neither selection or mutation are prove the theory of evolution.
The person who first came with with Natural Selection called it Artificial Selection. He realised that species had variance in their genetic makeup which was a way to keep species alive as opposed to creating new ones. The idea was if there were black and white moths, then pollution or snow would favour one or the other and help keep the species alive. So it could result in the species changing colour, but ultimately it is the same species. Whereas if they came in one colour the species might die out.
Artificial Selection was basically stolen or used by Darwin to come to an opposite conclusion, which was one species changing into another. What we need to consider here is that all species have a wide range of code to keep them robust in all kinds of adverse effects. This is generally accepted by all, that variation within species leads to different features being favoured depending on the environment.
If we look at the Bible, it doesn’t actually deny that one species can change into another. What it says is there are different kinds. Noah took different kinds onto the ark, so that means he could have taken a single pair of cats and from that, we see all the cats in the world. However, no one has ever proven that a cat can change into a dog or something that is not a cat.
Viruses change all the time, but they stay the same kind. No virus has ever become something that is not a virus.
Scripture says God created all the kinds. Whatever code he put into each kind can be expressed in all its different ways. The only time we see one kind become another is when we intentionally mix the kinds through genetic engineering. Thus a creator is needed to cross the boundary of kinds.
At the end of the day, genetics proves a creator and Atheists use it to deny a creator. It proves a creator because we see sophisticated code that humans cannot write. It takes us extreme lengths of time just to decode a genome, and we struggle to understand what it all means and what does what. Who would deny that a computer virus was not the result of a clever person albeit a criminally inclined person. So when we see biological life forms that are written in much more sophisticated code, suddenly Evolution which has the IQ equal to a pair of shoes supposedly did it all.
@T8,
Selective breeding has been around for centuries but a variation of it where the “selection” was done by natural process was one of the things Darwin required for his “theory”.
The other was mutation which was also know to exist by those who used selective breeding and selective breeding has been used from before writing appears.
Darwinism has disproved even the evolutionists just like Freudianism has been disproved among psychologists. I am surprised that I was taught in school things that had been scientifically disproved. I assume that is still going on.
Darwin evolved into NeoDarwinism in order to account for genetics which Darwin lacked the knowledge of. The example of an creature getting a longer neck is nonsense as a longer neck may be as simple as a change of allele of one gene, or as complicated as the addition of more than one. What looks simple may be a complex change.
Selective breeding of dogs has lead to many types, but they are still dogs. This is like nature sped up, and yet we do not see dogs changing from their kind. Evolutionists hide behind time. They say that given enough time anything is possible.
But if a group of dogs are given 100 million years, they will still be dogs simply because it is encoded in their DNA. To change them to something new or into a cat requires rewriting the code or introducing cat code or some other kind of manipulation done by an intelligent designer such as God or us.
T8,
We do play God but as far know we have not yet created a new kind. We have done some strange crossings of two kinds such as jelly fish genes being inserted into various mammals.
T8, please with the Noah….it drives me mad when people don’t mention that 7 pairs of the clean animals were taken into the ark…..mad I tell you mad. I know it has nothing to do with the topic just had to express! :p
Adjusting to the environment I believe is a big key to how great genetics can be, to have the capablities to adapt to an environment just astonishes me. To deny there is some form of awe inspiring behind it all is well to say the least a bit foolish. However, just because someone does not genderize or call them by the name you do is no reason to deny them of truth. That just isn’t right.
I would think the plant world is more prone to genetic cross breeding by science, the collateral damage is not such an impact (for use of a better word) to society.
I do know if a child born at one time and had a mutation the child was left outside the walls of the city to die, due to the attention and extra it would take to raise it. Some even went as far and stated the child was from hell.
Sacrifice to the christian god could not have any type of mutation or blemish. only the best blood line was sacrificed. So mutation has been around for a long time.But mutation is random, I know something about the proteins adhering to something and when the code is misread or skips a beat mutation occurrs.
The closest I would call playing the creator is stem cell research, but then again saving the placenta after birth and eating it by pill form is all the rage now, and not only does it benefit the mother but also the child especially when breast feeding. Breast feeding is one of the natural human concept since the beginning, now some people go off the deep end if a child is suckling from its mother’s breast in public. for some reason they think the breast is out for them………..LOL!
hi
in all of creation there is no some thing like the PRESENT ;ONLY PASSED AND FUTURE BY THE SECONDS ,this mean changes occur in a constant motion ,is this evolution ? of cause not ; only the right connection are permitted ,is this evolution ? of cause not ;
now scriptures says that all creation were created in pairs and were given a reproduction system ;was this evolution ? of cause not ;when the flood came to be God says that all creatures that breaths air will die ,and today are found in fossils ,does those fossils prove evolution for they look different from those creatures that follow them after the flood ? of cause not ;
when scientist test the rocks in which they found the fossil left over animal would that mean that the rock and they animal have the same time table than the rock in which they have been found encased in ? of cause not ;would this explain evolution ? of cause not .
creation shows that their was a certain amount of time that has passed from the creation of the whole universes and the time of creation on earth as a living earth ,
Princess,
Scientists do genetically modification now. I have a picture of a child of one of their experiments. It is a cat that glows under a green light. That glow is a mutation so now we have artificial mutations.
We have thrown radiation and plants to cause mutations in hope is beneficial as well. It is called mutation breeding and is has been used with a number of plants.
Fetal stem cell research is an atrocity.
T8, please with the Noah….it drives me mad when people don’t mention that 7 pairs of the clean animals were taken into the ark…..mad I tell you mad. I know it has nothing to do with the topic just had to express! :p
Exactly, being specific about that has nothing really to do with thee topic at hand as you say. I only said, that it is possible that if he took one pair of cats, that could explain all the variety we see. Why does something unrelated make you mad then? Do we have to write an essay and cover all basis so people don’t go mad. I tell you that would make me mad, lol. But since you brought it up, I guess the clean animals were able to be eaten and still have some left over.
However, just because someone does not genderize or call them by the name you do is no reason to deny them of truth. That just isn’t right.
You’ve lost me here. What do you mean?
But mutation is random, I know something about the proteins adhering to something and when the code is misread or skips a beat mutation occurrs.
yup. Further, from what I have understood, mutations are generally unfavourable. It is a bit like a finely tuned sports car. If something basically breaks, moves, or changes shape (without a designer) then it is usually detrimental to the performance of the whole.
T8,
I believe God has a hand in all things even mutations that are bad. I tend tend to view things we consider bad as Satan’s actions though God allows Satan to perform those actions.
Noah’s flood story was an exaggerated adaptation of a smaller flood story on the part of the priestly Hebrew redactors in Babylon when they produced the OT books, using older books that they redacted and edited. In attempting to trace their blood lines back to a much older Adam and Eve, the Hebrew priest gave up and decided to “drown the whole world in it’s own wickedness” in order to fill in the gap of the story. One can see that the flood story is an interruption inside a genealogical account.
* The Hebrew government that produced the OT books made no claim of writing by divine inspiration, that idea was a creation of later priestly ruling class to establish authority and a religious system of Justice. Geneses does NOT claim to be produced by a God!
* There is no secular history of the Jews unlike other cultures because after converting their relatively ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction, they destroyed their history books. Or if it is to harsh to conceive that the same people who rejected and killed Christ may have fudged their history while in captivity based on their self proclaimed “chosen people arrogance” then by chance their scripture survived but the history books mentioned within them did not survive.
* Judaism is itself an evolved religion, but there is no scripture that would presumably predate Moses the reformer, only fragments of previous religious practice and beliefs.
* It only requires just a little common sense to realize that the flood story is a fiction. It is truly maddening that grown adults buy into that crap as if it’ really happened doing great damage to people who might otherwise give the gospel of Jesus the Christ a fair hearing!
* God never has nor will he ever regret anything that he has done, is doing or will ever do. That whole concept is a human likeness, not a God likeness.
If God gave man free-will and he chose to rebel, then yes he could regret that man ever happened.
For love to exist, God has to take the risk. Eliminate the risk and you have a race of robots that will obey your every word, and do not know love, only commands.
In attempting to trace their blood lines back to a much older Adam and Eve, the Hebrew priest gave up and decided to “drown the whole world in it’s own wickedness” in order to fill in the gap of the story. One can see that the flood story is an interruption inside a genealogical account.
Oh yeah. Did you see that in a video, comic, or what?
Actually I just figured out where you got that from, the Urantia probably.
We put our trust in scripture. Not all do that of course.
Let’s try and steer this topic back to Evolution.
Then not only would we have a God with no foresight to begin with, he repeated the same mistake because man didn’t change at all! After God drown everyone on the earth who was not righteous (including infants and pregnant mothers) with the exception of 480 year old ancestor of the Jews, this only righteous man in the world ended up drunk and passed out naked in his tent!
Anyone outside of the authoritarian indoctrination can clearly see that the flood story is not only impossible, it’s a creation of man written for the child like mind of the audience during ancient times, before science or common sense was invented.
Which evolution? The rapid regeneration of life after it got off of Noahs boat, an event that NO other people on earth trace their ancestry to except the Jews? Or ancient life found in the archeological record on this 4.8 billion year old planet that completely contradicts the God of the OT created in mans own image?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
