Evolution. not a religion. fact. many people fail to see this. not only has evolution occured in the past, it never stops occuring. you, right now, are evolving. evolution is due to meiosis. the reproduction of cells in the body for sexual reproduction. meiosis takes place in the genitals. one cell becomes four. you see, each human has 46 chromosomes. therefore the cell needs to split into two (copying itself) then those two split again. the second split divides the chromosomes into 23. the homozygous pairs of 46 chromosomes. sexual reproduction, the new "sex cells" join to form a mix of chromosomes from both parents. 23 from one parent and 23 from the other. this combination of chromosomes allows for great genetic differances. each person is different. each persons fingerprints are different. this also explains why no two people have identical DNA (deoxiribonucleic acid).
-
Intelligent Design16% Voted for by Rosh, keyman7, Joshua Washburn, Doom Pickels.
Okay so I am so surprised to find out that there are still people out there that believe in evolution. Seriously I am not trying to be rude or anything but I just do not understand how the theory even upholds itself. Humanity has been around for app. 4 thousand years now and has not changed nor has anything within our universe. Yes, it is true that all of mankind comes from a common ancestor so the question is to be raised "how come we have so many natonalities today?" A relvent question but one that I think has a logical explantion. We were designed with tons of gentic information but not all of it shows up as dominate. It is therefore stored in our DNA as a recessive trait,its still a part of who we are just not visable. so when humanity dispersed and began to dwell in different enviroments there bodies adapted to it. They did not alter in the basic traits that make up humans but rather drew upon what was already a part of them, this same truth holds out against the above explained meoisis as evolution theory . The same thing go for animals if you look at how they have "evloved" it is all within the frame work of the characteristics that are distinct to that particular breed.All of this points to the fact that an intelligent creator forsaw needs and programed its creation with the means by which to survive these changes.
-
Animals and man have similarities... common ancestor, or common creator?12% Voted for by EternalEyes, keyman7, Doom Pickels.
I am a creationist.
What I fail to understand is, why the evolutionists constantly make up excuses why evolution must be right. It's like having a hundred dollar bill in your pocket. You don't look at it so see if it's fake, because you're worried it is. So you go around and tell everyone that your hundred dollar bill is real, when you're not sure. Then those people believe you and they go and tell other people. Now, say you find out that the hundred dollar bill is fake. What do you do? you hide the fact that it is fake and you continue telling everyone that it's real.
So now, perhaps someone insists that you spend that hundred dollar bill. What would you do?
Moving on to what I was originally going to say...
Many people insist on evolution because animals have distinct similarities, because of a supposed common ancestor.
Isn't it fair enough to consider a common creator, instead?
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
No. No its not. Anyone who bases their argument for evolution solely on the idea that humans share qualities with animals does not understand the full concept of evolution. Evolution digs deeper than phenotype (manifestation of a gene), it discusses how life began. We share almost nothing with a yeast cell. Yet, we share even less with a bacterium. This is because a yeast cell is eukaryotic like us and a bacterium is prokaryotic. Physical characterists should not be looked at as much as genetic characterists. As more and more genomes are being decoded, we begin to see phylogenic similarities. We can see a logical progression from prokaryote to eukaryote and single-celled organisms to multi-cell organisms. Another thing you should realize is that evolution is one of the key foundations of most sciences. If we had not developed a theory of evolution, modern antibiotics, and a whole slew of medical advances would have never been discovered. Almost all of microbiology and biochemistry is based on our knowledge of evolution. Finally, evolution occurs every day. I am sure you have heard this a thousand times, but if you understood it, you wouldn't be making a claim against evolution as a whole. I could explain to you in detail how our immune system uses evolutionary practices to select T-cells and antibodies. Evolution occurs everywhere all the time.
-
I don't necessarily disagree with evolution as a whole, but I do strongly disagree with the idea that this world came to be by chance. In other words, I believe that apart from God, evolution doesn't have a hope in hell for occurence. The reason is that evolution is far to improbable for it to occur by chance. I've seen some mathematical figures that show that the odds of a single celled organism forming from its constituent elements by chance are in the area of 1 out of 10 to the 57th power. Then you have to consider that organisms chances of survival and reproduction. Suddenly, evolution seems like a very unlikely happening. This is why I think that if evolution did occur, it was only be the hand of God that it did and thus is an outlet of creation.
-
-
Thats funny. I have yet to hear this mathematic probablity. Evolution by chance is very logical. It is the existance of a god, and the necessity of him writing a bible that is illogical. The idea of him creating an earth when he could have just made heaven to begin with, that is illogical. Evolution, on the other hand, makes more sense and at least to me, provides more purpose than any god does.
-
-
Hey, whatever gives you a sense of purpose. But I just hope you are not wrong. If I'm wrong and God doesn't exist and evolution is true, I don't really lose anything at all. But if God does exist and evolution did not occur by chance or at all....well, some people are going to have to explain their reasons of disbelief to the one that they didn't think was really there.
-
-
You don't lose anything by believing in God, you do lose something in not believing in evolution. If everyone was like you, modern biology and medicine would not exist. We would be back in the 18th century.
-
-
Oh geez. How could we be in the 18th century? I mean, even if modern science did not progress then time would still go on. So, while the idea of evolution may have influenced certain sciences (maybe even beneficially) I still believe we would be in the 21st century today even if we'd never heard of it. And I didn't say I didn't believe in evolution, I just think it is against impossible odds that it could ever occur by chance. Especially with the evidence of the pre-cambrian explosion and such.
-
-
Thats not evidence, thats coincidence. As a scientist, you should no there is a key difference. Something is only evidence once it is tested repeatedly. This is why our court systems are so fucked up. Every little shred of coincidental material is somehow seen as a connection by people. And when I said 18th century, you knew what I meant. I was talking about medical knowledge. We would have no germ theory and we would still believe in stupid medical theories like Myasthma and blood letting. Both of these were disproven under the context of evolution.
-
-
No, there is a key difference in evidence and science. The pre-cambrian explosion is definite evidence of something. Now it is not science. Science is something that needs to be capable of being tested and reproduced. Evidence is merely an observation that is left to the interpretation of the observer, either a good or poor interpretation. The question is, how do we interpret such things as the pre-cambrian explosion? The evidence indicated that at one time, every variety (plus a few) of species appeared on the face of the earth in a very short amount of time. This would seem to contradict the theory of evolution altogether which requires a great deal of time and would show middle species. The evidence of the explosion actually speaks in favor of creationism. The fossil record as a whole (pre-cambrian and beyond) speaks against evolution if one considers the concept that evolution is proposing. But anyways, you are right about me knowing what you meant. I have this bad habit of being sarcastic (blame my evolution I guess). But the truth is, I don't believe that medicine would be as different as you say. The inventors of numerous vaccines and treatments have occured without the aid of the evolutionary theory. Not to mention, years ago people thought that life could spontaneously form because of the appearance of mold and maggots in food and such. Such a spontanaity would testify in favor of evolution, but it was later shown through simple research that the maggots came from flies and the mold from microbes. Besides all of that, evolution is outdated. It is impossible that it occured. I previously stated the odds for a single celled organism forming. I was actually wrong. The odds I stated were the odds of a protein forming from amino acids. You need hundreds of amino acids to form a protein and then you need hundreds of proteins to form a cell, so the odds for a single celled organism forming by chance are a great, great deal worse than I stated. I mean, this is like a damning evidence that there is no chance for evolution to occur by chance. Darwin himself stated that his theory would fail if one could find a device such that could not be reduced in such a way as to have been produced by evolution. Well, years after Darwin we found several such devices. These systems and organs on micro organisms that can not be reduced are known as irrreducible complexities. It is impossible that such things form by chance. To say that they did would be to say that a 747 could be formed from a tornado blowing through a junk yard. Also, in my opinion, an impossibility. So in conclusion, evolution faces extreme odds in its attempt to make its case. The odds to not bode in its favor and rather lean towards what scientists are calling 'intelligent design'. You can call it God or aliens or a life force, but in the end, life came from an intelligent being of some kind. Thus, it did not evolve. It was designed and built.
-
-
To even insist that spontaneous generation would a proponent for evolution is madness. Germ theory was devised with evolution in mind. Spontaneous generation is by all means a creationist way of thinking. "I don't know where this came from, oh well, straw created it. I don't know where this came from, meat made it. I don't know where we came from, god made it" It falls under the same mentality. To say that evolution is at all failing is ridiculous. What biochemists are microbiologists can you quote that would agree with this claim? You are twisting and contorting things to make them benefit your belief. The thing is, science and religion cannot coexist.
-
-
I am both a scientist for the sake of my occupation and a religious person for the sake of my beliefs. The two work quite well together. Gregory Mendel was both the father of genetic theory and a monk. To make the claim that evolution denies the existence of God as some do (Time magazine was noted for saying, "Darwin didn't mean to murder God. But he did.") is a 'scientific' statement with religious affiliations, for even atheism is a religion. So to say that science and religion cannot coexist is madness if not idiocy. I'm not a biologist, so I cannot comment on germ theory and things like it. I've not studied them. The only relation between evolution and germs I can think of is what people call 'micro evolution'. That is when a microbe develops an immunity to certain chemicals and anti-bodies. Now I would agree that this form of micro evolution may exist, but that is far from saying that society came from a combination of amino acids a billion years ago in a primordial soup. Have you heard of a biochemist by the name of Michael Behe? He is not a creationist but rather a man led by the scientific method. In his extensive analysis of evolution (recorded in the book, Darwin's Black Box) he stated, "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs...The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design...has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature." So, just out of curriosity, do you want there to be anything beyond nature? I mean truly. Me personally, there would be parts of me that would be so relieved and even thrilled if there was nothing beyond nature. I can honestly say that I've tried to make myself believe that there truly is nothing beyond nature. But the fact of the matter is that the world we live in, our cultures, our philosophies and everything reflect evidences of a realm beyond the natural. Deny it all you want, but if God did not create the world and evolution essentially is the beginning of man, then answer me these things. Is there such a thing as right or wrong, for nature is autonomous and cannot be either right or wrong? If evolution is true, how do you or anyone else explain irreducible complexities, the pre-cambrian explosion, the lack of a fossil record needed to prove evolution and the like? How do you explain that species are not growing more diverse but are rather becomming more particular? All of these questions are easily answered by intelligent design. What is evolution's defense? In my opinion, I would rephrase your last statement. I would say that the real thing is, science and evolution (apart from diving intervention) cannot coexist.
-
-
"Is there such a thing as right or wrong, for nature is autonomous and cannot be either right or wrong?" Right and wrong are subjective. They are learned and are different from person to person. Right and wrong can be learned by animals as well. Take a trained dog for instance. It knows where the right place is to excrete and the wrong place. Most dogs that excrete where they are trained not to are visibly ashaimed and hide. "If evolution is true, how do you or anyone else explain irreducible complexities, the pre-cambrian explosion, the lack of a fossil record needed to prove evolution and the like?" There are plenty of fossil records, the earliest human bones look nothing like they do today. You have never seen these? They are in museums all over the place. "How do you explain that species are not growing more diverse but are rather becomming more particular?" There are new beatle species being created all the time. Where are you getting this from? Humans themselves grow more diverse as time has been progressing. The only thing that would contribute to similarities is assimilation. Its astounding to me that you or anyone else sees evolution as a dying theory. Inteligent design does have major flaws. For one, there is no precedent. It is a religous theory and is purely anecdotal. Of course it can answer all those questions. If you insert God into the picture, you can answer any question. "Why is the sky blue?" "God made it that way" "Why are the ants so small?" "God made them that way?" "Why are we here?" "Because God has a divine plan" These are very comforting answers, but not the correct ones. The sky isn't blue because God made it that way; we both know the real reason why the sky is blue, it has to do with the wavelengths and frequencies of visible light. The ants are not small because God made them that way; they are small due to evolution. If they were any bigger they would be to heavy compared to their surface area and they simply would not be viable. These answers are more difficult to explain, especially to those who are simple minded. Thats why people simplify things they do not understand. This is where I believe Inteligent design came into play. Creationism spawned due to a non-understanding of the world and where we came from. The theory was constructed before we understood much of the world. It was a simple, easy explanation. And if you questioned it, you were going to hell. So, it was able to manifest in our society until someone had the balls to throw it out. If you want to be comforted, enjoy intelligent design. It has almost no scientific research going for it and just uses existing information and puts God's name in front of it. If you want to be enlightened, view things with an open mind. It seems as though many people who support inteligent design are trapped in this religious right-wing conservative mentality in which God MUST be involved in the picture. The answer that the world is just to complex for there not to be a God is just too simple minded of an answer. Nothing is EVER too complex to be understood. Eventually, we will understand it. But it will take an open minded public to allow that to happen.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I would like to think that I do have an open mind. Evolution merely fails to achieve my faith. Even if there are new species of beatles forming and such, that is nothing compared to the hundreds of species that have died out (both micro and macroscopic). These species are the odd reptiles, birds and mammals which we find evidence of in the fossil records. Where did they go and why did they fail to survive? Evolution has theories about their extinction, but nothing that is conclusive. Mind you, creationism has but theories as well and none are 100 percent conclusive. Still, this places evolutionism and creationism on the same level save that evolution would seem to predict a more broad range of species that is increasing and creationism would predict a large set species. If evolution's species began to perish, the strong would survive and more species would come on the scene. Creationism would allow for a more and more limited population which is what I believe we have today. I also don't believe that right and wrong are subjective as you say. One culture says a man can marry one wife, another says he can have many wives. These are differences in views of right and wrong that are subjective. But there is a clear case of right and wrong in relation to the thought that a man can not have any woman he chooses. To say that right and wrong are subjective is to say that it is possible for a culture to exist where warriors who flee in the midst of battle as cowards are praised for their actions by their peoples. Such things as courage, love, and hope are good things inherently. They were not chosen to be good as they would have to be in a subjective world of right and wrong. Evolution cannot explain this at all or nearly as neatly as a theory of intelligent design can. And you are right when you say that it is convenient to just answer the 'God made it that way' reply. It is convenient because we don't have the obligation to do the research to figure out how the 'it' in question works. We're a lazy lot. But while it may be convenient for our own slothfulness that God exist, it is certainly not comforting. Some people who are misguided in their theologies speak as though standing before an all goodness of God would be fun. They need to reconsider. If God does exist, he is either the greatest threat to us or the greatest safety. And nearly every religion in the world will tell you that we have made ourselves enemies of God. This is not a comfort, and believe me when I say that I've longed that it not be so. But I believe it is and must live accordingly. And as for what I said about the fossil records not supporting evolution, I stand by it. There was a scientist who's name I can't remember who described it quite well (he was very much so not a theist by the way). He began by saying the general theory of evolution that we evolved from a single celled organism and all that fun. But he also showed that the fossil record does not reflect such an evolution for a lack of evidence. He took two organisms that are very similar: a cow and a whale. Both are mammals, both breath oxygen and both share similar characteristcs (eyes, ears, internal systems). Now the evolution of a cow into a whale would require a great deal fewer changes than a microbe into a whale would. Yet the series of changes necessary to turn one mammal into another is a number that is over 50,000. The skin would have to be water proof, the breathing apparatus would have to change, the skeletal structure and such. All of these things would have to take place before that simple evolution could occur. Under evolutionary theory, this would require a lot of time. But given the time, it would also mean that there would be thousands of middle species. This is the same for any evolution that has allegedly occured. Birds, bees and boys all came from microbes in the beginning. We should be seeing a great deal more middle species (hundreds of thousands) than we do. I've seen the fossil record of human evolution. And on the one hand it seems that evolution provides a nice example of how it occured. On the other hand, the Bible does as well. Even the Bible speaks of species of mankind that were wiped off the face of the earth (as far as we know). These were primarily the Nephilim, Anakim and the like. So religious creationism has some explanations as well. Something to consider. Well, I look forward to reading your response. I'm glad that you are an educated arguer. We may not see eye to eye, but you've an idea of what your talking about so I feel that we are having a conversation and an intelligent debate (even if you do think me an ignorant oaf for believing in intelligent design). So, master DryIce, you've my compliments on a match that has been reasonably well played thus far. I would wish that we went to schools closer to one another. Very interesting conversations over a cup of tea and a Scotch on the rocks, we could have.
-
"the evolution of a cow into a whale would require a great deal fewer changes than a microbe into a whale would." You are looking at things the wrong way. A cow would not evolve into a whale. According to evolution, both of these species have evolved over billions of years to the state they are in today. It would be nonsensical, at this point for that to happen. What did happen was an early member of both of these genuses differentiatied. There was a divergence and one species eventually became water mammals and one became land mammeals. A cow into a whale does not hold because it has negative fitness. A cow, today, is much better fit to live and graze on a farm. Any mutation from this would most likely be killed off by the farmer before it was at reproducing age. Large evolutions take thousands upon millions of years. Small scale evolutions, on the other hand, happen everyday. The uptake of a plasmid by a bacterium. This does not just confer antibacterial ressistance. It is the uptake of DNA that could lead to anything. We do this in labs all the time. The uptake of DNA, either through transformation, conjugation, or transduction (transduction being the most useful) is how we alter a genome. In labs we stimulate evolution every day. We can make a bacterium more fit to survive in certain circumstances. We can also make them less fit, so a certain type will all die out and only the non-transformed will survive. We transform some bacteria with a plasmid that has certain genes on it with antibacterial resistance as a marker. We can also create transgenic mice. Its not just bacteria here. We have evolved mice experimentally. When was the last creationist experiment? Oh, thats right, it can't be tested. Its one of those theories in which it can never be proven wrong. Funny how it seems to change over time though. You would think a theory handed down by God would not have to go through so much editing to still be viable. Realize that there are still people out there, who are major proponents of ID, that think the earth is only 4000-6000 years old. Simple fossil records can show this is not the case. I am pretty sure that you know this, as you have even quoted fossil records in your posts. So, what makes people even consider, with all the knowledge we have today, that the earth is so young? Because the Bible tells them that. A book, supposedly written by God. ID evolved from this book. Its interesting how ID has gone through an evolution of its own. It started out as "creationism." Once that stopped being accepted by the public, a new theory "Inteligent Design" penetrated through. This name is attractive but just presents an updated version of the same old crap. Its interpretation is also vastly different amongst its followers. Some people view it very conservativly: "In seven days, everything happened" Some view it slightly more liberally: "God created the universe in 7 days, but, who knows how long a day is?" Well I will tell you that a day is a damn day. Why would a day be anything but a day? In all honesty who would design a day to be more than 24 hours? That response deserves a huge, you've got to be kidding me. Now another response people who support ID say is this: "Well seven days is a stretch. I think it was an allegory. I think it means that god created everything in that order, but it was still created. It did not evolve." Finally, the most liberal: "God guided evolution. He made things happen the way they did for a reason. Evolution took place against all odds because God allowed it to happen." The last group is the confused yet hopeful type. They want there to be a god so they can live eternally, yet know there is something up with the bible. They have a science background and want to believe in Creationism and evolution at the same time. Most scientists in the biology realm claim that there is no need for a god to guide evolution, it can happen on its own.
-
Okay. Let's say that evolution is true etc. etc. How do you explain the precambrian explosion? Now, it happened. There is no denying that. If you do, you need to question every other fossil find which would put evolution in jeopardy. How do you explain irreducible complexity? It is true that there are many parts of a cell that are irreducible. The flagellum is one of the most common. What IC means is that the way the device is formed, it is impossible for one part of it to form and not the other parts. If the device lacks one element, it will not work. This is evidence against evolution for such devices must have been built, not evolved. If evolution is true, how do you explain that there are so many scientists who are still trying to find 'proof' for evolution if they are using it today? Why do we need to 'prove' evolution happened over millions of years if we can perform it ourselves in only a few minutes? And to say that we 'perform' it ourselves negates it as being evolution altogether. Evolution is a random process. What we see as modifications in microbes and otherwise today is truly intelligent design. Our own intelligent design. Response?
-
-
Its not inteligent design, because the microbes themselves pick up the DNA. The ones that recieve it survive, the ones that do not die. We don't take a seringe and inject each one with it. While this isn't exactly "natural" selection, it fits the categorization as evolution. Evolution does not have to occur over billions of years. Evolution over billions of years is a compilation of microevolutions that occur with each successive generation. I know you understand that. I also am pretty sure you make blanket statements like the one you did in your last post for effect. You know as well as I do that a single mutation does not take a million years but a single error during replication will do. Look at the HIV virus. It evolves while in the host. This is why we have so many different strains. They are becoming resistant to antibiotics. That is evolution. There are also antigenic shifts that occur in viruses all the time. It also happens with almost any microorganism. A certain environment kills most of them off except a minute few. The remote few live and reproduce. This evolution of bacterium is happening today with antibiotics. You know this as well. To claim evolution takes millions of years is ludicrous. What does take millions of years is the evolution from one species to another. Especially when the differences are vast and complex.
-
And another thing, it isn't proof that they are looking for. Most scientists are fairly content with Darwin's theory. What they are looking for is further evidence to help us understand how it happened. Much of this, I will readily admit is a mystery. One cannot pinpoint how each and every species came to be. We have recently found several interesting crosslinks still alive, take a look at this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060311/ap_on_sc/species_survivor_11 and this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4782492.stm If anything else, these are fairly interesting are they not?
-
-
Why not a bit of both?
I'm a Muslim. One of our prayers calls Allah "Creator of all worlds", and he is said to create all life, but describes it in a way that can be interpreted as evolution. I'm an evolutionist and scientist. There is more evidence for evolution than God and creationism. I believe in God despite the illogical standpoint of His existence. I think ID is valid as a religious belief. Evolution is the scientific manifestation/side of that belief, the one supported with facts. There is no scientific evidence for God. Accept God on faith, evolution on facts. Salaam alaikum. -
-
agreed... I used to find myself in your position as well bobrocks. Now, I cannot even embrace that. This is just me, but I felt after a little while, that I was just kidding myself by believing in God. I am open to the idea, but not to any organized religion, especially one that argues against evolution.
-
-
~sigh~ The facts are clear, it is all a matter of interpretting them. One can interpret them in such a manner to support evolution. But in so doing, one leaves numerous questions unanswered. I've still not heard a reply on irreducible complexity and how evolution can make an account for that. Every day I am in biochemistry, I hear more impossibilities that evolution cannot explain. Just the other day, we went into the properties of oxygen and its effect on life. Without we cannot survive, and yet it is one of the most destructive compounds to DNA and proteins that can be found because of its diradical structure. The only means by which we survive its potency is an enzyme that I believe is called superoxide dismutase. In order to be able to process oxygen for the purpose of energy, an organism would have to have this enzyme (which is present in all oxygen breathing living organisms). Evolution cannot explain how that enzyme got there. Without it, a being could not use oxygen. And a being that did not breathe oxygen would not need it. And worst of all, even if all of science were answered and we had all knowledge of all science in the universe, that still would tell us nothing about the questions we find most important. A meaning to life, right and wrong, why we are here, etc. Evolution can't answer them, none of science can. So for the evolutionist to claim there is no God and that all living things are just a product of nature is folly. There is no means by which such a thing can be proven. And any evidence related to such things points towards their existence and not against.
-
-
"Just the other day, we went into the properties of oxygen and its effect on life. Without we cannot survive, and yet it is one of the most destructive compounds to DNA and proteins that can be found because of its diradical structure. " It is free radical Oxygen that is damaging to DNA and we have evolved several mechanisms for error repair. I took a full year of biochemistry in undergrad and another semester in medical school. I know what you are getting at with this, but it is not entirely true. Every day while I was in biochemistry I recieved further proof of evolution. In fact, it was this class that taught me the endosymbiotic theory. My professors spoke of evolution as if it is assumed. Often one would hear the phrase, "and through evolution this was developed." I still have a hard time grasping with the idea of you going into the sciences and not believing in evolution. As far as your oxygen debate and utilization of it / use of superoxide dismutase, in a very lengthy explanation I can explain to you how microorganisms, who developed in an environment almost totally free of oxygen, used nitrogen fixation and methanogenesis to survive. As more complex organisms evolved, the ability to utilize and produce oxygen also evolved. "I’ve still not heard a reply on irreducible complexity and how evolution can make an account for that." Not everything is known yet. As far as your pre-cambrian explosion, most scientists now believe that evolution does not occur linearly, but in bursts (another piece I picked up from undergraduate biochemistry). It occurs in bursts due to natural phenomena that drive it forward. "A meaning to life, right and wrong, why we are here, etc. Evolution can’t answer them, none of science can." Perhaps there is no meaning :/ Perhaps there is one:) Nothing can prove it either way. I have some questions to ask you for once. Where do you stand on creationism? Was the world created in seven days? 100 billion years? Was a logical progression of species guided by god, or did he plop everything on earth and plant the fossils for decoration? Really, what are these amazing explanations that creationism provides that evolution does not? I'd love to hear them.
-
-
Sorry it has taken me a while to reply. I will do my best to answer your questions. I am indeed a creationist and believe the world to be created in 7 days (however long that was I don't know). God created all species and some later died out leaving their fossils behind. Creationism allows all questions to be answered without having to go up against extreme mathematical and scientific odds. But thats not why I believe it. I believe it because there is a God and He revealed Himself in the holy Scriptures and they provide a clear explanation of creation.
-
If he created all creatures at the same time, then how come there is a logical phyolgenic progression of fossil records?
-
To make that statement is to claim that we have all or nearly all of the fossil records. There is much more to be found.
-
-
Yes, but you say that "Creationism allows all questions to be answered without having to go up against extreme mathematical and scientific odds." The odds of us finding fossil records that agree with creationism is mathematically improbable. The fossil records we have found lay a pretty good time map of the organic earth. In order to prove creationism correct, you would need to find a human skeleton that dates back to a dinosaur skeleton. This has never happened and will never happen. Of course, your easiest defense to this is that God made it that way, but that is not an acceptable answer. According to the bible, the earth is only 6000 years old at most anyways, which makes me wonder who has it right. Is it the anthropologists and paleontologists, or the scientifically ignorant preachers?
-
-
Honestly, I'm not worried about it. The truth of the matter is that God did make it that way. You say we need so and so amount of evidence to prove creationism. I don't believe you. If we found a human skeleton that dated to the precambrian period, I'm sure you would be more than willing to believe that it got there by some other means. I can say that with certainty because you speak as though it will never happen though you don't know for sure. You merely believe. You make it clear that no matter what, you will not believe or give ear to the probablility of a God as creator of the universe. Even though evolution is an near impossibility of occurance by chance, though irreducible complexity cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, and though such things as the precambrian explosion cannot be adequately explained by evolution, you will still refuse to even entertain the idea of a creator. But thats okay. It doesn't matter. Our beliefs on the past will not change it. What does matter is where you stand with the God that does or does not exist. If you were to die today and stood before the 'god that wasn't there', what would you do? What would you say? My most recent of thoughts leads me to believe this to be the most important question that far outweighs that of evolution and creationism.
-
-
I had just wrote a huge, long reply to this and lost it. I am pretty pissed off about that. I don't know if that has ever happened to you. I guess I can try and sum up what I wrote. It is questions like those you ask at the end of your post that keep people ignorant. It is questions like these that make people live in fear of questioning their religion. Instead of questioning, they just accept. I think you misunderstand where I am coming from. But before I tell you, I would like to ask you this, If you were to die today and stand before God, what would you do if he said that all along you were wrong? What would you do if he told you that despite your pious efforts and your loyalty to your religion, you are still screwed? What would you do if he says, "didn't you figure it out? After all this time, how could you have not realized that the true saviour is not Jesus Christ? It is Allah that stands before you." What would you do? See how these are stupid questions? What can you do? Nothing, you can stand there and feel like an idiot. I am sure that is what you want me to say. But I am sure that the answer you would give to my question is the same answer I will give to yours. Its not going to happen. Now I will give you my background. I was raised as a conservative Jew. I went to Hebrew school three times a week and had a bar mitzvah at age 13. Finally, I stopped going to hebrew school. I was allowed some time to step away from it and think. All of my life I was taught evolution, but went to hebrew school and listened to creationism stories. They even came up with excuses as to why dinasaurs roamed the planet prior to humans. They said, "No one knows how long a day was back in those days." I would think, "A day is a day. Its a 24 hour period. Who could think it any differently. Did the Earth increse its rotational velocity in last 5000 years?" Eventually, as I got older, I realized few people actually believed in these things. The bible is filled with myths, like any other culture has myths. It is just a comfortable thing to tell children and stupid people. Evolution is the mostly widely accepted belief by scholars and has been so for a long time. Why would 99% of scientists "believe" in something when science is not about believing. It is about testing and knowing. The theory of evolution has been tested under several circumstances. It answers ALL questions while creationism only answers some. It accounts for fossil records while creationists ignore them. As far as your precambrian explosion, I have already explained it. You just ignored it. Now, I seriously doubt your knowledge of evolution. I don't think you have much past high school science class. If you did, you would know that evolution is believed to occur in spurts. This is due to environmental changes. The greater the environmental stress, the greater the strain is put on evolution. Its Young's Modulus incarnate. Stress over strain. This explains why an explosive amount of evolution occured in a short time. If God made everything in seven days, why is there still such a HUGE gap in fossil records between species. There is a phylogenic timeline that you cannot deny. You can believe what you want, but doing it against evidence is ignorant and as a future scientist, I hope you know that. When applying physical laws and theory, evolution wins every time. When looking at fossil records, it is evolution that explains it, not creationism. When looking at endosymbioses, bacterial resistance, plasmid uptake, and human embryonic development pictures, evolution wins every time. You say that creationism explains everything, but, in reality it explains very little. It is simplistic and underdeveloped. It gives no better explanation than, "God made it that way." If God did create the earth, it was not in the way described in the bible. We have way too much evidence against that.
-
-
What I don't get is why people believe Evolution proves Creationism wrong. People, It doesn't. Infact, it can go totally along with it in some religons (like Christianity)
-
I'm pro the universe taking 15 billion plus years to come to today. There's empircal evidence to prove it, and I think the Bible is a bit... tainted, as do all Muslims. Perhaps a bad translation, perhaps something else. Who can know? As for ignorance, that's what I'm fighting in my pro-universal education in Muslim countries Aid papers written to Hands across the Middle East Student alliance (that doesn't look spelled correctly, but oh well). Asalaamu alaikum
-
Sorry, evolution is just impossible from all angles, and this is only the tip of the iceberg
Here are my two cents.
There are 2 types of amino acids.
Right and Left handed amino acids.... They are made of exsactly the same atoms, but are mirror images of eachother. just like your right and left hand (im not being really technical right now) Thease amino acids can turn from left to right and vice versa. This occurs when an animal dies because the Dna starts breaking up allowing amino acids to change. This is when amino acids racemize. Scientists conclude that 20 million years is the MAX amount of time it takes for all the amino acids to have a ratio of 50:50 even it it started out as 100:0 (this is because of the law of chance)
All DNA in the world that produces living organisms is made of left-handed amino acids. This is very simple, yes?
Now as we go back "billions of years" we come to the promordial soup, witch is rich in.. not amino acids... TAR. Yup 85% tar. This is what happens when the chemichals needed for life are struck by lightnening and the process continues. But there is a trace of amino acids to allow life to begin! Now lets start the fun part!
Amino acids come in two forms, right and left handed (as explained earlier) In order to come up with a working protein, they must all be left handed. if not the protein curls up and becomes completely uselss untill it breaks down.
When lightning or any other form of energy causes amino acids to combine, there is a 50:50 chance that an amino acid will be right or left handed. In order for 2 amino acids to be left handed, the odds would be 1:4 (1 to 2^2) In order for it to be 3 it would be 1:8 (1 to 2^3) in order for it to be 9 it would be 1:512 (1 to 2^9). Now if we were to have the scientists conclusion of the simplest form of life possible to survive, there would be 100,000 base pairs (note the simplest one alive today has around 500,000, but I will be nice) So in order for functional DNA to begin (not life), we start of with the odds of 1:2^100,000th power.
Now Good thing we have high tech calculators. The total odds would be 1:10x30102 (10 with 30102 zeros after it) (I rounded from 9.99 to 10, just to make it easier)
Now we go to the scientists with their most conservative numbers possible. And here we have it. If the odds of somthing occuring in our universe (this includes how big it is) were smaller than 1 to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (50 zeros) It couldn't happen at all in our universe.(the odds for the DNA has more than 600 times more 0s)
But let's say that even against all odds, we come up with a good DNA sample with 100,000 base pairs. Now what? In order for DNA to function properly, It must be inside a cell to keep it from breaking down and to carry out the DNa's instructions. In order for a cell to form, The DNA must be able to make a Cell. We are in a bit of a chicken and egg argument. One we start out with a chicken who can't lay eggs. So in order for it to work properly, the 1000s of parts have to be in exsistance when the DNA forms, right next to were the DNA is forming. But the parts cannot exsist without the DNA to form them using the parts that the DNA must make. All of a sudden, the first life forms come to a complete stand-still. The odds of lighting turning the correct molecules into over 1000 different parts and the DNA right next to eachother, with a cell membrane to keep it all together, and to have the correct part for the DNA, are absolutely astronomical. In fact, we would have to start using the expression
1 to 10^#^#. The number of zeros would need to be put in scientific notation just so it would fit in a screen. But let's say that even against all odds it works. It just simply works out. Just once. We can deal with it. It's just a number right? Now we have an even bigger problem... It's too cold for thease reactions to occur billions of years ago. Here is why.
As a star ages, it gets hotter and brighter. (unlike what you are taught in textbooks) This is because when nuclear fusion takes place, 4 hydrogen nuclei turn into 1 helium nucleus, and energy. When this occurs, it gets hotter, and the nucleuses get closer together (1 helium nucleus takes less room than 4 helium, even if it is bigger, it takes less space) When atoms are closer together, and hotter, nuclean fusion can happen easier and faster. It is only common sense.
But there is a problem here. If stars get hotter as they age, then a star would be cooloer if we go back in time. If we were to go back in time billions of years, using the most conservative numbers, the planet of earth would be waaaaaaay to cold for such chemical reactions to occur.(The point were many gases would freeze) But there is still another problem with the first cell idea.
Our earth is in the most perfect place in the galaxie. Just look at it. First, our star gives off the perfect amount of energy according to how far we are from it. If it was a red supergiant, then it would engulf the inner planets.If it was a very bright star, it would emit way too much high frequency light waves. Too small, and we would experience terrible tidals waves constantly because we would have to be very close to it in order for it to support life. Most stars are in binary, trinary, or polynary orbits, this would cause extreme tempurature differences on the planets that orbit the stars. Many other stars with preferable characteristics as our own star usually have terrible coronal ejections 10-100million times worse than our own star. worse than our own. We really do have a special star. And there would be at most 100 of them in our galaxie. But at most 2 would probally have a planet that was the correct distance from it. But here is more.
In our solar system, the gas planets are far away from the sun, when rocky planets are close. This is completely contradicted in other solarsystems.
999:1 times the gas planets are close to the sun. Why didn't that happen in our solar system? Why did it happen to theirs? It just points out that something had to keep it from being a disaster. If gas planets were to rotate inwards, it would suck up the "life bearing" planet. But if it were to start close, then why didn't it happen in our solar system? Why does it just come up so that everything works for it? But here's more.
When stars rotate in a galaxie, they can either be neer the middle of a galaxie, or neer the edge. Because our sun's orbit is circular, it doesn't get very close neer the center were supernova are much more common. It also orbits paralell to the galactic plane. Crossing over this plane would be very disruptive. Plus the sun orbits at an ideal distance from the galactal center. only here does the rotation of stars match that of the spiral's arms. Crossing over an arm would expose it to tons of supernova.
The odds of our star to have the right distance from us, size, heat, stability, distance from the galactal center, with it's paralell orbit to have rock planets closer to it than gas planets, witch a plant at the right angle to allow the right distribution of seasons, at the right rotation speed to allow equal distribution of the sun's light, with a powerful enough magnetic feild to protect it, the right magnetic feild that wouldn't suck iron out of your blood, to be altering the laws of physics to start out at the right tempurature and not get hotter like what it should be, to create the correct corresponding parts for a cell with the correct DNA (all left-handed amino acids) to just randomly come into exsistance, are 1 to 10^*sideways 8*
But let's break the odd bearier for just once moment of time! just once! let's see were this first cell takes us. The cell has no food souce exept the tar.... It can only get it's energy from the sun. Ok, we just will skip all the imposibilities and go on to were it comes to work. the cell divides, copying it's genetic information. This continues. In only a few days, the bacteria would have consumed the entire earth... Kinda a drag, breaking all thease odds, and you just completely eat up the perfectly formed earth. But that isn't completely logical, the bacteria would die out turning into food for the stronger bacteria.
But lets look at it now. We have bacteria. A cosmic ray hits it causing a base pair to be destroyed, the DNA repairing agency inside the cell accidentally makes a mistake. Creating a mutation. WOO HOO! out first form of evolution... or is it? Most mutations are harmful and usually destroy data. So that specific bacteria cell just doesn't work as well as it should, but because it was only one base pair, it can still multiply.
Over the years, more genetic mutations will occur, but 99.999...% of them will be harmful to the bacteria. Even if a good mutation were to occur, it would drown in the lake of bad mutations.
We don't even see evolution today. We simply see either a harmful mutation helping an organism (like sickle-celled disease, and and overworking pump in bacteria). variations, like a group of tan people going to africa, were only the darker skinned people survive. and cause genetics for light skin to slowly die away as darker traits are being put in. Or were people who could digest food ok, moved up to mountain areas, were cheese was a vital form of food, people who couldn't digest cheese that well (Lactose intolerant) would die, and people who could diget it very well would be healthier.
But thats about it, variations in exsisting traits, or harmful mutations allowing some things to not happen (like chopping off your legs so you don't get athlete's foot)
But the problem is all organs would have to completely arise. Fully and wholly. If a bump were to "try" to evolve into a leg, it would be considered useless because it would get in the way of say a creeping organism. The bump would be dragging on the floor, making it infectable easy. Thus It would die. Unless the bump were to have muscles and bone s's in order to help the creeping animal, it would simply die, and the odds of a bump having the right muscles and bones in it are extrmely unscientific as well.
Not only that, we see absolutely no form of evolution. Evolution is were you have arising complexity, but that is not true. out of the trillions of fish we see, none of them have a prmitive form of lung. Out of all the plants, none of them have growing brains, blood, or any characteristic much like an animal (even carnivorous plants digest food completely different from animals)
And if evolution was true, then we wouldn't even need a classification system. Because every single animal would be evolving. Every single animal would be a transitional form. But that is not seen. A bat is always a bat. a kangaroo is always a kangaroo, a human is always a human. There isn't anything in between them. Sure we have say like a chimp between dogs and us. But that is irrelevant. because a dog is a dog, a chimp is a chimp, and a human is a human. but if evolution were true, almost all the animals would be different filling up every single gap between them. But we don't see that. Even evolutionist say that the present is the key to the past. And if you look at the present, I see God's wonderful creation being able to adapt using the genetic diveristy that God was smart enough to give them in the beginning, ruled by man, the image of God. Nothing becoming more complex, just decaying with time as genetic mutations start to harm all the animals and humans.
Our culture is fed the lie that we are simply evolved monkeys. That is why creationist try their best to help save the people in this decaying word. Some think we are jesus freaks trying to "save" them. But it is completely your choice to have faith in the text books who lie to you, or faith in a bible written by supernatually inspired honest men. -
and BTW
here are some examples of what evolution can't explain.
Biology doesn't explain why the retna in our eye is unside down. if it was right side up, then a solid lake of blood would have to be in front of it to keep it alive. The geoelogical timeframe doesn't explain why the layers of the earth are stacked up right on top of eachother with almost no erosional features in between them (take a look at the grand canyon for yourself)
It would obviously rain every once in a while during the million year timeframes.
Biology can't explain why we still find amino acids in dinosaur remnaints. According to science, all amino acids would've broken down by now.
Astronomy can't axplain why our moon is soo perfect. Not to close, to far, spinning at the same speed as it rotates.
Astronomy can't explain stars. Take an ice skater for example. When she pulls in her arms, she spins faster. Now that is a minor amount of distance, and mass compared to her full body weight. But when stars supposedly form (evolutionist style) 330,000 times as much mass as the earth spins from lightyears across into a ball 860,000 miles in diameter. Because our star would spin too rapidly before it could begin nuclear fusion, to even form.
Astronomy can't explain why stars even exist. Gas that is much thinner than the gas on our planet is spread lightyears across. If you guys know what a vacuum is, atoms spread from a high pressure area to a lower pressure area. The very thin gas is still under more pressure than the absolute vacuum of space. The vacuum of space would cause the gas to separate, not form into clouds. This is because gas doesn't have a lot of mass, and in turn wouldn't have enough gravity to pull itself together compared to the vacuum it's in. But we see tons of stars. They are out there... but it's impossible for them to form by chance.
astronomy can't explain fully formed galaxies in areas were galaxies shouldn't be formed yet (because it takes "billions" of years for the light from those galaxies to reach us) the galaxies shouldn't be formed that long ago
bilogy can't explain why there is sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is much more efficient in passing down good genes to their offspring. And a 1-99% formed reproductive system would be considered useless because it doesn't work, and it would become discarded over time.
biology can't explain why we have thoughts
atronomy can explain why there are laws that hold up the universe.
biology can't explain why there are no transitional forms. (we see animals that look like they are between two others, but if evolution was true, every animal should look like it's between 2 others, because every animal is evolving)
Biology can't explain why we find soft tissue in t rex bones.
The only thing that can explain the above and much much more is the teachings of christianity.
but why christianity, why not islam or hinduism?
christianity was the first religeon to say that stars are moving away from us. Christianity was the first religeon to say that the ocean floor wasn't flat. Christianity was the first religeon who accepted everybody into heaven. (most other religeons say that you must be good enough ro enter heaven) Chrstianity is one of the very few religeons that warned people about eating unclean things (God knew that there was bacteria, people of ancient times most likely didn't) Christianity is one of very few religeons that talk about a catastrophic flood. This flood would be the only explanation for the rock layers we have now.
But I will shut up now, because it's my bedtime.
But please don't take my words harshly. I'm only trying to point out some flaws, and try to help you guys see the truth, according to what I believe. But if you believe in evolution, you also must support racism (as darwin did) It was one of the main things of evolution. that the "weaker" and "less evolved" humanoids should die. And I'm against racism. And I'm for the way the truth and the life. please listen to the words I speak. I would really like to hear your opinions about the facts that I said. -
-
Wow
No idea if all those points you made are true, if I get chance i will check them out. Even so great read Doom Pickels, enjoyed it lots thanks
-
-
I'm a Muslim. One of our prayers calls Allah "Creator of all worlds", and he is said to create all life, but describes it in a way that can be interpreted as evolution. I'm an evolutionist and scientist. There is more evidence for evolution than God and creationism. I believe in God despite the illogical standpoint of His existence. I think ID is valid as a religious belief. Evolution is the scientific manifestation/side of that belief, the one supported with facts. There is no scientific evidence for God. Accept God on faith, evolution on facts. Salaam alaikum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am very sorry that you believe this way. I'm a Christian but I I'm looking through the glasses of Allah right now.
By believing in evolution, you say that Allah cannot make funtional life to begin with. It's like saying your a God, but I won't trust and believe that you were able to create human life all by yourself. Or if you believe that evolution had to be progressed by Allah, your telling Allah that he isn't infinite in wisdom knowledge, and strength.
Note, I do not believe there is more evidence for evolution for creationism. First of All, there are 6 types of evolution.
two of wich are micoeovlution and macroevolution
microevolution is varyations within DNA. Like a group of people in africa. The people who can jump higher and have darker skin will be the ones who survive lions and tigers by jumping and climbing on trees, and they will not get skin cancer. This is because the DNA for more melenin and the DNA for a thinner and bouncier bone structure in the legs are the ones that are multipling.
Some people say macroevolution is microevolution over a looong time. This is untrue. macroevolution requires a lot of new information. In microevolution, DNA that already exsist is the one being used to help the peoople of africa live.
Evolution must get information by mutations. But almost all mutations are harmful or remove DNA. not create it. And it can get DNA from other bacteria, and viruses, but bacteria and viruses do not have the genetic information for say an eye. or a leg, they just have information that a bacteria or virus would need.
An intelegent creator would make sense to explain the absolute order and complexity of all life and our universe. Because the Big bang is impossible as well.
-
-
What narrow thoughts8% Voted for by Roo, fathom me.
Evolution is happening, we are in the middle of a evolution growth, that is why are culture is changing super fast, evolution is not just cells, we are talking the evolution of Man kind, and that is happening through communacation.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Evolution is said to take thousands of years. Are you telling me that the massive change in culture that has occured within the past century is a result of evolution? Seems that nature sped up the pace a little bit, eh?
-
haha!
"evolution is happening"
What kind of evolution are you talking about? Macro or micro? or possibly even both. But sorry, only micro evolution is possible.
Micro evolution is "survival of the fittest" so to speak. But it definately has limits. What happens is that a group of people who have genetics to withstand something harmful will survive and pass the genetics to their offspring, were people who don't have it die and don't pass their genetics to offspring. This is known by almost every single highschool student in america. But the problem is that microevolution doesn't create new information in the genetic structure, just copies them and filters out genetics that would harm the organisms in that enviorment. This is an amazing thing that causes some evolutionists to ponder. Because microevolution allows animals to adapt to an enviorment ,and I quote, "10 to 100 million times faster than previously expected"
Macro evolution requires new information to be added into an organisms DNA. Not only new, but beneficial. Not only beneficial, but constructive. But we don't see macroeveolution today. people don't have any organs that look like they don't have purpose that will soon to evolve to have purpose. And we don't se vestigal organs left from when we evolved from other animals. Out of all the fish in the sea, not a single one is growing primitive lungs. Out of all the bacteria in the world (and by golly there is a lot) not one has ever been seen to evolve into a multicelled organism (A mutation that would cause a single cell to produce multiply and to have some cells become specialized doing one thing and other cells to turn into others)
And if we are in the middle of evolutionary growth how come the world is in fact getting dumber? We can see this. buildups of genetic informities are causing us to suffer.
just like to tell you this
-
-
I am convinced that rationalists are 'evolutionarily' inferior (despite the conjecture that subjective ideals are not objective under an atheistic system)8% Voted for by TeChNoWC, Dwn.
No, this is called changing one's intended form (progression). Evolution refers to changing one's descendants in all their complexity, so that if you were to find one of these descendants (incest aside) you would no longer be sexually compatible with them.
All assumptions. That one thing refers specifically to a proof of evolution's axiomatically concievable proof is logically incorrect surmising, and also creates a paradox in itself.
Maybe some evil demon made it appear to us as though we had evolved. Maybe the world was created 5 minutes ago and everything implanted upon creation (fossils, memories, light from distant galaxies) and maybe we concieve of the fact because the chemicals in our bodies force us to believe we are right in our assumptions. Show me the 'proof' that disproves these surmises.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
keyman7
February 26, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 14, 2006
Edit | Reply
September 17, 2006
Edit | Reply
Every one that believe in evoltuion is a dumb ass.
The bible has to have some truth to it. The concept of a god that talks to humans has to fall in place. They found sulfar balls in the place of sodom and gormorrah. If you study up on it the bible is just messed up. A cloud in the desert that has god in side of it that lights on fire is not supernaturel. Neither are the chariots that he has. There is no missing link because there never was. There was a man made by ID that did'nt work out to good so bang THERE GONE! I also applaud this answer.September 17, 2006
Edit | Reply
Every one that believe in evoltuion is a dumb ass.
Son of bitchOctober 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
October 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 27, 2007
Edit | Reply
How do we know?
A very big problem I see in textbooks is that they have the ability to lie... It really saddens my heart to see it.Taking a basic science corse doesn't mean you learned the truth, It just means you learned what the people that wrote the book believes in. You don't learn that the earth is billions of years old, you learn that the creators of the book believe it is billions of years old. A problem is, that if the earth was billions of years old, we would probally see a lot more erosional features between the earth's layers. But no, at the grand cayon we see all the layers are stacked up right next to eachother. As if the sediments were all laid down underwater. (IE, Noe/Noah's flood)
Evolution isn't "change" it is an addition of complexity. Evolution and ID, cannot possible work together. Because what would be the point of Adam and Eve causing sin, death, and pain if pain and death were there before to cause them to evolve.
I also want to point out the fraud of mutations causing simple organisms to become more complex. In fact, what you see when you you see a whole variety of animals is God's amazing ability to create things with amazing diversity.
What you people are saying is that pressure has caused "blacks" to evolve into white. This here is a racist statement. first of all, God made Adam and Eve perfect. They didn't have sickle celled disease, and they were darker complected, but still bright. But the problem with your belief is that in order to get a black person to have their descendants become white, you must replace and add information to cause the skin cells to not have as many pigments. But this is simply impossible without mating with someone who is white to allow lighter genes to enter the offsprings genetics.
But mutations are almostall harmful, and a lot of mutations actually get rid of genetics. (like bacteria having faster pumps to pump out poisons simply because they no longer have a switch to control the pumps), or when there is an albino child born because they aren't able to creeate sufficient amounts of pigments. or when a fruit cannot make seeds. we consider it "beneficial", but it actually harms the plant if it can't reproduce.
I'm not saying beneficial mutations don't exsist, but they are soo tremendously rare that it is simply impossible to use them to explain that man cam from molecules.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free