We must, however, be weary that just as religion is a way to spiritual health, it may also be a way to controll many peoples. The Catholic church and even the pagan cults have done this before in no small amount. An individual or group trying to benefit itsself rather than the people who it should serve, example: Indulgence.
evolution
-
-
To my responce?
-
I can't deny evoluution occurs. Heres part of why:
1. Snakes have legs. Yes, I know someones gonna call me an idiot for saying this. But its true. Snakes have tiny legs (none of which protrude outside of the body) that are ultimately useless but may have been useful at some point in the past.
2. The human body also has some organs which really don't do anything besides cause problems (apologies for not knowing the term). Apendics, for example.
All this said, evolution is hard to deny. However, there is proof towards God as well. For example, the "missing link". Despite millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of research, no scientist has yet found an example of the "intersection" (if you will) between man and monkey. Thus, I think Both occured, a theory shared by all of my past biology and chemistry teachers. Before I say anything, I want to stress that a Christian teacher convinced me of the proof of evolution. That said, I think I know how it all worked out. God has existed for millions of years; as had the world. In the little time that humanity has been around, the meaning of a "day" has been modified many times. I think God created orgainisms instantely, which evolved first into dinosaurs and then into increasingly modern creatures. Some species that formed were wiped out by sheer natural selection. The dominant genes increasingly won out until the modern day. However, I don't think natural selection is all true. How, otherwise, would the "fainting" goat have survived so long? And yes, this interesting creature is natural, not man made. This goat is susceptable to predators, as it faints when stressed. Odviousely not a survival feature.
So, considering snakes and goats, I have to think that the two must tie together at some point.
Middle ground between science and religon, I think, is more prevalent than commonly thought.It is a sad day when an innocent nation's flag is decried as hate speech.
If I say it, I believe it. Most of the time, anyway.
-
jnifw3nloi wrote:
It is not a theory, it is a scientific fact that evolution exists.
Microevolution, sure. I never argued that, and it's hard to find a Biblical creationist that will.
Macroevolution? Yeah. They thought they had it all figured out a few years back to with such frauds as Lucy and the Piltdown Man. (Ring a bell?)
That was all supposed "fact" too... then shock of shocks... it wasn't!
Not trying to come across cold... just a pet peeve of mine when someone presents an ever changing "theory" as fact.
Microevolution certainly exists. There have been countless observances of it. When austronauts go into space their muscles weakne because of the lack of gravity, their muscles have adapted to the new enviroment and thus evolved, in a way.
Similarly, there was an incident where a forest was polluted, the moths hiding on the trees had to blend in with the now blackened bark, so after a few months the great majorety of moths were black. When the forest was cleared of the pollution, the moths returned back to their white color to blend in with the bark.
The first example you gave is something I'm struggling to comprehend as evidence of any form of evolution, but okay...
The second.... exactly... microevolution. The moths were still moths. Nothing else.
Microevolution is a far cry from millions of years of macroevolution.
Macroevolution, on the otherhand, is harder to prove but still possible. While the entirety of terrestrial life may not have originated from a single species, they have none the less evolved over millions of years to exibit the traits seen today.
Prove it.
And godless_musician, I'm not sure if you were addressing me or not, but either way, I'm looking forward to what you have to say! -
FutureNavyMan08 wrote:
I can't deny evoluution occurs. Heres part of why:
1. Snakes have legs. Yes, I know someones gonna call me an idiot for saying this. But its true. Snakes have tiny legs (none of which protrude outside of the body) that are ultimately useless but may have been useful at some point in the past.
2. The human body also has some organs which really don't do anything besides cause problems (apologies for not knowing the term). Apendics, for example.
All this said, evolution is hard to deny. However, there is proof towards God as well. For example, the "missing link". Despite millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of research, no scientist has yet found an example of the "intersection" (if you will) between man and monkey. Thus, I think Both occured, a theory shared by all of my past biology and chemistry teachers. Before I say anything, I want to stress that a Christian teacher convinced me of the proof of evolution. That said, I think I know how it all worked out. God has existed for millions of years; as had the world. In the little time that humanity has been around, the meaning of a "day" has been modified many times. I think God created orgainisms instantely, which evolved first into dinosaurs and then into increasingly modern creatures. Some species that formed were wiped out by sheer natural selection. The dominant genes increasingly won out until the modern day. However, I don't think natural selection is all true. How, otherwise, would the "fainting" goat have survived so long? And yes, this interesting creature is natural, not man made. This goat is susceptable to predators, as it faints when stressed. Odviousely not a survival feature. So, considering snakes and goats, I have to think that the two must tie together at some point.
Middle ground between science and religon, I think, is more prevalent than commonly thought.
No, no, no!
Gah... had I the time, I'd address everything here.
Unfortunately, I'm on a limited time Express Internet at the library.
When I get home, when I get home...
But yeah, you made a good point.
Where is that missing link?
Where are all those alleged transitional fossils???
There should be hundereds of thousands! You'd think something other than a few dozen drawings, could be found on line... -
What I'm saying is that humans, more than likely, did not really come from monkeys. We were created on the biblical "second to last day", which was millions of years after the beggining.It is a sad day when an innocent nation's flag is decried as hate speech.
If I say it, I believe it. Most of the time, anyway.
-
I did not mean that God all of a sudden created man upon the barren Earth, I am saying that all God needed to do was create the universe at one point and have it governed by a standard set of laws. These laws would eventually lead to a more complecated universe that may support life, such as our own. God needs to do no more than begin the process.
-
And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
Saved-by-Grace wrote:
No, no, no!
Gah... had I the time, I'd address everything here.
Unfortunately, I'm on a limited time Express Internet at the library.
When I get home, when I get home...
But yeah, you made a good point.
Where is that missing link?
Where are all those alleged transitional fossils???
There should be hundereds of thousands! You'd think something other than a few dozen drawings, could be found on line...
What? Obviously there are going to be gaps, probably large gaps, in the fossil record. It would be highly suspicious if there weren't. Just because we have not found a particular link does not mean that it doesn't exist and we must fill in the gap with an unsupported God theory.And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
The time spans that are currently being discussed are hundreds of millions of years in length. During these epic times, it is more than likely that the greater part of the Surface of the Earth has been changed in such a way as to destroy structures and fossils that may have once existed.
When a creature dies, there is a small chance that its remains will become preserved and eventually replaced by rock and other minerals and form a fossil. Combining that slim chance with hundreds of millions of years of geological activity, we get a very slim chance at observing the fossils of a single species as they change to a new animal over the course of millions of years. -
Okay, this is my long response I told you about. Glad you want to hear it:
Omg. It says my post is too long. Um... I'll split it up.
This is going to be really long, sorry.
But I really love this conversation and I like what you have to say.
Saved-by-Grace wrote:
And getting to know other people, I've come to realize that any given person can look at any given other, and belive they're ignorant or missing something.
We're all so diverse, it's incredible. Sad to a degree, but enlightening in another way.
Not two single people on the planet have completely identical beliefs.
The thing is... everyone believes their right, and all others are wrong. That's natural.
Hmm, that's true, and actually, it bugs me somewhat. I think personally that all people at all times should accept the possibility, however remote, that they've been completely wrong about everything their entire lives.
Nonetheless, that's no reason to submit entirely to faith and nothing but, nor to become a paralyzed skeptic. Both are easy escape routes. Although everybody believes they are right, some are more justified in their beliefs than others--some examine their beliefs, question them rigorously, think constantly, etc. And some just decide what to believe on a whim and stick to it no matter what the evidence. And of course there are many degrees in between--suffice it to say that the more you test something and the more it comes up true, the more sure you can be, although you can never be absolutely certain.
Evolution is one thing that has seen billions of trials by the evidence and in not a single case does the test fail -- everything in the natural world is exactly as you'd expect to see it if the theory of evolution is true.
Actually, it says as much about HOW He did it, as it does WHAT He did.
He spoke the universe into existence.
He made man out of the dust of the ground, and literally breathed into him the breath of life. Then He took man's rib, and created a woman.
He did this in six literal 24-hour days, and rested on the seventh day. Not because He had to, but to set the pattern for us.
Speaking, making, breathing, time are all very complex concepts. Each one has taken scientists hundreds of years to mine and we have still only scratched the surface of each. If linguists can barely understand the mechanisms behind language, how much of a thorough explanation is it to say "God spoke us into being?" Really it is hardly an explanation at all, since God speaking is hardly the same thing as a person speaking. Since "speech" is such a familiar thing to us we assume it is done with and explained.And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
Can I ask you a few questions?
You can always ask me questions.
What would you say... if you had to... is the single best evidence out there for evolution?
Why are there so many differing theories?
Has it ever occured to you that what you accept as fact right now concerning our origins, could be totally countered by mainstream evolutionists and scientists, and thrown out or replaced in just the next decade or so?
I'd say the single best evidence for evolution is that all the organisms we see on earth are phylogenetically related. That is, you can build up theoretical "trees" of how things evolved and what kind of features they should have at what times in evolutionary history. And behold, NOT A SINGLE ORGANISM in the modern world or in the entire fossil record violates that tree. You can make a billion different predictions based on evolution regarding phylogeny and they always turn out to be true.
But there is no way to test creationism. It's neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
But it's disgusting! :p
We... via millions/billions of years of death, disease, mutations, and struggle... evolved from either pond scum or some other sickening organism that came from who knows where... into what we are today.
Forgive me if I find that a bit disturbing or hard to swallow.
Oh, dear.
Well, frankly, I find public flatulence pretty gross. But it's a fact impossible to deny, I'm afraid.
Anyway, to put off the sarcasm for a little while :p , I don't think evolution is gross at all. I don't think the description "pond scum" fits, or if it does, you are looking at it solely from human eyes--and we've only been around for a tiny fraction of evolutionary history. If you look deeper in the pond scum you see very beautiful and clever organisms that through ages have evolved hugely diverse and complex mechanisms to survive--there are so many bizarre and wonderful creations out there that to me it's even more bizarre and wonderful that it can all be explained by plain'n'simple natural selection.
Of course on the surface of it, say, a sea cucumber defacating is pretty gross, but since when is "gross" the standard of anything? I say that beautiful is not pretty and gross is not ugly.
Would you find it unfair if I summed up the very initial start of this universe by saying...
In the beginning was nothing... which exploded.
And 4 billion years later, here we are.
Not unfair, but misleading. Who says it began with nothing? Actually, scientists thing that it started with an extremely dense and hot bit of matter called a singularity. Yes, that it exploded. Fun, eh? Of course, it has also been a lot more than 4 billion years (that's just the age of life) since the beginning of the universe. And to pop up with "and now here we are!" completely ignores or inadequately sums up how we got here, which I think is what creationism does in putting it all down to God.
Oh no, my friend. It's not hard to believe at all.
LOL. No. The creation theory is an infinite, all powerful designer creating the building.
Evolution says there's nobody behind all this.
Nobody but every organism that ever lived, lol, each one a tad bit smarter than the last.
Which is a more plausible explanation of the origin of a building: trillions of workers over billions of years? or one worker instantly?
Which is a more plausible explanation of the origin of life: trillions of organisms over billions of years? or one God instantly?And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
Whaa...?
How does this world not imply a designer? Okay. I don't even know why I'm doing this. But, for the sake of your argument, let's just *pretend* that the Bible explained the making of our universe in a way that lines up beautifully with the current evolutionary theory.
Would you believe it? Answer that question honestly first.
Now let's say the rest of the Bible said exactly what it already says all the way through the rest of it.
What would you think of that God?
Maybe once you answer those questions, I can remember where I was going with this.
Ooh, you're playin' rough. :p Well, to answer your question, if a 2,000-year-old document lined up with evolution perfectly I'd think the people (or Person) who wrote it were pretty bright and pipe up to what else they'd have to say.
I think maybe I didn't make myself clear why this world doesn't imply design.
Things that are human creations, like a wristwatch or a computer, are obviously designed. But I don't think it's the same at all for natural things, like a flower or a crocodile. Did a human design them? Surely not. And what else can we be *sure* is able to design such a thing? Well, who knows. I think it's premature to exclude the possibility (and likelihood!) that a some*thing*, not a some*body*, designed them. After all, computer software designs computer chips among other things. Intelligence ain't the only thing that "designs."
No it's not!!!
LOL. I'd use all CAPS for that, but I'm working on my virtual ettiquette.
You decided it was with the pretense that we evolved.
I say we didn't and God created us with His own intelligence... giving us intelligence to begin with so we'd figure out how to do things like say... build buildings.
And honestly, I don't doubt the original humans were naturally a lot brighter and intelligent than we are today. We as humans are getting dumber by the century.... we've just got so much headway from those before us, we're not really slowing down with it yet, and we appear so much more intellectual and brilliant.
I didn't mean evolution in the biological sense, but evolution loosely as a gradual process of change in growth. I was showing that the same process that an intelligence uses to create a structure over time could be used by natural forces to create an intelligent organism over time.
He's God.
He's capable of doing whatever He wants to.
What kind of loving, wonderful God would He be if He created us through eons of death, disease, and struggle, then sat back, looked at us and said it was all very good...?
He did what He did. I don't know how that confuses you about an explanation.
Maybe if you were more specific in your question?
My point is that it's harder to explain a sudden miraculous creation than a process of gradual changes. That is because a more complex mechanism is required to create something quicker (such as intelligence.)
Science? Define science.
LOL. I love how you put things.
And the more I hear about evolution... the more I'm convinced there's a God that created just as He claimed to in His Word!
I think of science as an objective way to model reality by repeatedly testing predictions. But there's probably a formal definiton out there.
Why does learning more about evolution make you believe more in creationism?
No it doesn't have anything to do with on thing changing into another. It involves a human... a person... growing naturally as God intended into a fully developed human... a person.
A baby and an older adult are still both completely people. The baby doesn't have anything added to it, or anything develop on it that wasn't there to begin with by the time it's older.
In fact, it loses a lot through the course of it's life. And that's not evolution at all. Close to the opposite actually.
You would agree that a child and an adult, although members of the same species, are completely different things, no? And evolution can involve losing as well as gaining. A child gains some things in growing and also loses some things. But most important is that it *changes*, and it changes very gradually.
You haven't shown why there's this sudden wall where further change is not allowed. If microevolution occurs, what is there to stop the micro-changes from accumulating into a large change--speciation?
But species and kinds are two different things.
Not so. Just different scopes.
A child is different from a teenager, but a child and teenager are even more different from adults than from each other. But one grows into the other into the other nonetheless. Same situation.
An example of two different species would be a flamingo and a mountain goat. They're two completely different creatures all together. No matter what you do, they could never, ever be bred.
They've diverged far enough that you can't breed them together. That's true. That isn't proof that they were never at some point members of the same group or species.
An example of two kinds would be a dalmation and a poodle. Or even cyote and a poodle. They're different yes, but they're still dogs. (just different kinds of dogs) And they'll never produce anything but dogs.
Change is no evidence for macroevolution.
You still haven't shown me a convincing qualitative difference between kind and species. It seems to be a rather arbitrary line. "Dogs can change so much... but no more!"
How do you know one has?
Because of the exceedingly prevalent evidence for macroevolution.
I find it only fair that if the burden of proof for a God falls on me, the burden of proof for a creature giving birth to another different creature falls on... naturally, you.
Oh, but I don't have to prove it because you've already admitted to it. You say you believe in microevolution. Organisms spawn slightly different organisms. And the slight differences compiled over aeons are all that is required for much larger differences to take effect.
Ahh, think again my friend.
Faith doesn't just mean a belief in the supernatural, or a blind belief.
It can simply mean a complete confidence in something.
You have a complete confidence in many things, I'm sure.
If you define faith that way, then sure, I have faith. That's not what I meant by faith though. I meant belief without evidence.
Believing in God is a faith, but far from a blind faith. Just as you believe you see everything backing up what you believe in... so do I.
If you could show it to me too, I would be delighted.
There's a little too much I'd have to swallow to accept a lot of what you do.
And surprise, surprise... the thing is... I don't believe I have enough faith to be an athiest!
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. Not believing something requires no faith at all.
What it would take for you to "swallow" my position is not to have a different kind of faith but to discard the faith you have now.
Let's keep the responses short after this.And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
Alright. My apologies if I can't respond to all of this right now.
We'll see what I can do in the hour I've got at the library here.
(I've lost internet access at home, otherwise this whole thing would've been answered days ago.)
godless_musician wrote:
Hmm, that's true, and actually, it bugs me somewhat. I think personally that all people at all times should accept the possibility, however remote, that they've been completely wrong about everything their entire lives.
You're talking to someone that's done just that.
More than once.
I'm honestly not some stubborn, brainwashed believer that ignorantly believes I'm all knowing.
I've hit serious ruts in my entire way of thinking that caused me to totally doubt everything I'd ever learned or believed.
I could've let that scare the hair off of me... or use it as something to reevaluate all I had in my heart and mind.
I did both. But more the latter than the former.
And nobody will ever convince me that I just childishly went along with what I believed before because it seemed to work.
I continued to go along with what I believed because despite the anxiety, questions and doubts, I came to a greater understanding of my faith and beliefs once I took a step back and thought about it logically.
I see answers to any given question I might have in the Word of God.
And even if the answer isn't a direct cookie cutter solution... it's a point in the right direction.
And even when things aren't all there... I know I'm safe.
But it's not just about being safe, or feeling like something makes sense.
You have to know it does.
I know. I'm positive. I'm convinced. I'm close minded, but I'm open.
I'm open in a sense that I'll listen to what others have to say, and I'll honestly think about it. I love hearing and trying to understand what makes other people with different beliefs tick. I love somehow... even if from a distance... tapping into another person's set of convictions or "factual beliefs" and thinking about it.
Thing is... the more I do that, the more convinced I am that the Word of God is all I'll ever hold as infallible.
Nonetheless, that's no reason to submit entirely to faith and nothing but, nor to become a paralyzed skeptic. Both are easy escape routes. Although everybody believes they are right, some are more justified in their beliefs than others--some examine their beliefs, question them rigorously, think constantly, etc. And some just decide what to believe on a whim and stick to it no matter what the evidence. And of course there are many degrees in between--suffice it to say that the more you test something and the more it comes up true, the more sure you can be, although you can never be absolutely certain.
See above. =)
Evolution is one thing that has seen billions of trials by the evidence and in not a single case does the test fail -- everything in the natural world is exactly as you'd expect to see it if the theory of evolution is true.
Forgive me for finding this statement absurd.
I totally could've said the exact same thing about the Biblical account of creation.
Here's a question. (or a couple)
Have you ever read through the book of Genesis?
I don't mean just skim through it and saw some ancient "out dated" text from a guy that lived thousands of years ago claiming God made the world.
I mean... have you ever carefully, read through it, scrutinizing it's claims?
Not through glasses of the "scientific world", but just as a person... a person interested in it's content... then looked up at the world, and even thought about how the two might possible fit together?
Just curious.
Speaking, making, breathing, time are all very complex concepts. Each one has taken scientists hundreds of years to mine and we have still only scratched the surface of each. If linguists can barely understand the mechanisms behind language, how much of a thorough explanation is it to say "God spoke us into being?" Really it is hardly an explanation at all, since God speaking is hardly the same thing as a person speaking. Since "speech" is such a familiar thing to us we assume it is done with and explained.
Au contraire.
Speaking really isn't all that complex. It's probably more language that boggles people's minds.
But really language isn't a block of confusion at all to a Believer. (if I'm taking what you're saying the way I believe you meant it)
God speaking is much the same as the way we speak. God created speech.
It's no mystery.
He's an all-knowing infinite being. Surely, assuming He exists, He has the ability to program His creations with the concept of communication? -
godless_musician wrote:
I'd say the single best evidence for evolution is that all the organisms we see on earth are phylogenetically related. That is, you can build up theoretical "trees" of how things evolved and what kind of features they should have at what times in evolutionary history. And behold, NOT A SINGLE ORGANISM in the modern world or in the entire fossil record violates that tree. You can make a billion different predictions based on evolution regarding phylogeny and they always turn out to be true.
I have... never heard that before. I stress never because you'd think I would. What with all the evololutionists I've encountered. (They're not all that hard to find.)
I could say up front that... that's wrong.
But wouldn't that be all too predictable from a creationist?
So I'll just ask for references. Is there anywhere you know of that I could look up and read more about that?
But there is no way to test creationism. It's neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
Says who?
How is it so possible to all but prove evolution, but impossible to even come close to making creationism plausible?
Note though: I am in no way an advocate of Intelligent Design.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be that intelligence being taught about if ID were presented in schools. (And don't put it past anyone, because... the FSM has been "created". *rolls eyes*)
I'm a firm believer and supporter in the Biblical account of creation.
I'm convinced that the God of the Bible created this universe and all that it contains in seven literal 24 hour days close six to ten thousand years ago.
Yes, seriously.
And so to me, it's not about trying to just prove creation. It's about proclaiming the authority of God's Word.
And perhaps not all evidence this world looks at will line up with any given creation theory.
But it does work perfectly with the Biblical account fo creation given in Genesis.
Well, frankly, I find public flatulence pretty gross. But it's a fact impossible to deny, I'm afraid.
Anyway, to put off the sarcasm for a little while :p , I don't think evolution is gross at all. I don't think the description "pond scum" fits, or if it does, you are looking at it solely from human eyes--and we've only been around for a tiny fraction of evolutionary history. If you look deeper in the pond scum you see very beautiful and clever organisms that through ages have evolved hugely diverse and complex mechanisms to survive--there are so many bizarre and wonderful creations out there that to me it's even more bizarre and wonderful that it can all be explained by plain'n'simple natural selection.
My friend... natual selection never turned a monkey into me.
Nor did it ever turn a single celled organism into me... however many millions of years so and so claims it took to do so.
Of course on the surface of it, say, a sea cucumber defacating is pretty gross, but since when is "gross" the standard of anything? I say that beautiful is not pretty and gross is not ugly.
And how many sea cucumbers do you suppose died before they figured out they could flip themselves inside out as a way of surviving?
I'd say none because my obligation would be to believe that God designed them to do what they do... and what they do, they do well.
Okay, I'm being told I've got five minutes here, and I've lost one too many long posts to this cut off, and log off Internet Express, so I'll stop now.
I do plan to get here tomorrow, and finish responding, so you may want to wait to reply to the above unless you didn't want the rest of your posts answered here.
Or maybe you could just start replying to the above if you wanted to and save it until I post the rest. (This is assuming you care to keep going with this. I personally find it incredibly interesting.)
Whatever you want to do.
TTYL, Aiden. -
I'll wait until you reply. This *is* extremely interesting. It's funny that we've now mutually agreed to thinking one another's arguments/beliefs absurd, and yet we're both so certain of them. I highly doubt either of us is going to change what we think... but at the very least it would be gratifying to me to see the logic that you see, even if I disagree. Then I would know why we differ and it wouldn't be merely "I'm certain" pitted against "I'm certain." To respond to one part of your post, I don't in the least think you're a brainwashed ignoramus . I think you're an interesting puzzle who's nice to talk to besides. And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
Just so people know
Look up what a SCIENTIFIC theory is, how something becomes a scientific theory and the difference between scientific theory and fact.
A scientific theory becomes fact when it is observed, which of course given the time constraints is impossible.
Put your hand on the back of your head, for the majority of you there will be a small bony lump there.
Apes have that lump, you know why? cause it serves a purpose to beings that are hunched forward, muscles from the back join there to allow the head to be supported.
We would not have this if at some point what are now humans once hunched forward.
99% of elephants once had tusks, hunters killed these elephants for the tusks. If an elephant by some chance did NOT have these tusks (as happened from time to time) that elephant would survive.
Now a much larger group of elephants no longer have tusks.
Anything alive will over time adapt to its environment, its body, its behaviour and even its brain. If something breeds it will pass on the genes that allowed that animal survive.
Its really not a hard concept to grasp
Saved-by-Grace wrote:
Prove it.
How rich, prove gods existance? -
Denz wrote:
Just so people know
Look up what a SCIENTIFIC theory is, how something becomes a scientific theory and the difference between scientific theory and fact.
A scientific theory becomes fact when it is observed, which of course given the time constraints is impossible.
Put your hand on the back of your head, for the majority of you there will be a small bony lump there.
Apes have that lump, you know why? cause it serves a purpose to beings that are hunched forward, muscles from the back join there to allow the head to be supported.
We would not have this if at some point what are now humans once hunched forward.
Nor would vestigial structures exist, nor weird atavisms like newborns with fully developed tails.
99% of elephants once had tusks, hunters killed these elephants for the tusks. If an elephant by some chance did NOT have these tusks (as happened from time to time) that elephant would survive.
Now a much larger group of elephants no longer have tusks.
Anything alive will over time adapt to its environment, its body, its behaviour and even its brain. If something breeds it will pass on the genes that allowed that animal survive.
Its really not a hard concept to grasp
Sure. But that's not macroevolution. It's natural selection--which is one mechanism for gradual change. You cannot support common descent by saying "Look: here's one way it could have happened." That's like a Christian saying, "Look: it says how he did it in Genesis." (Kind of.)
How rich, prove gods existance?
People don't seem to understand that proof exists only in mathematics and logic, not in science.And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
-Walt Whitman -
godless_musician wrote:
Nor would vestigial structures exist, nor weird atavisms like newborns with fully developed tails.
Weird huh, Humans can be born with tails
Sure. But that's not macroevolution. It's natural selection--which is one mechanism for gradual change. You cannot support common descent by saying "Look: here's one way it could have happened." That's like a Christian saying, "Look: it says how he did it in Genesis." (Kind of.)
Thats not the same at all.
Evolution is gradual change.
People don't seem to understand that proof exists only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
What makes you say that?
There is proof in science
-
Share