The same arguments can be applied to your theory of creationism. The bible's description of the process of creation is far too vague to ever be held as fact, they may serve as a framework for a grander method but thats not something we'll ever be able to prove. The simple fact of the matter is that we have far more evidence for evolution than against it, its not nearly as vague as you claim it to be. We can clearly view the process occurring around us, even in short spans of time. The modern definition of evolution is widely accepted in scientific communities as pure fact, the only point of contention is whether or not macro-evolution led to the current spread of species on the planet
( ... )
this doesn't really have much to do with creationism. I'm just bitching about how I think there's absolutely no way humans could have come from monkey's.
Well, I know mutations can occur at sexual intercourse, and if that mutated offspring breeds it will create another offspring that is not only mutated like it's parent as being significantly different from the rest of its parents species, but it will also vary somewhat from it's parent as well.
I was thinking more along the lines of like say, a giraffe's evolving overtime to have longer necks to be able to reach their food. I have no reason to believe that mutations would occur in favor of helping the species adapt overtime. The only way that could be possible is if an organisms genes mutated during their lifetime. Otherwise you'd basically have to say their genes have some kind of intelligence in knowing to mutate, and to mutate exactly how to fit their needs.
I am saying that the evidence suggesting that organisms genetic codes in fact do mutate during their life times is
( ... )
the dinosaurs did exist. it says in genesis that god created all sorts of beasts, then man.
It's too difficult for me to possible argue anything about that here on livejournal, that'd have to be on aim.
Basically what I was responding to was the fact that some people were claiming that species "evolve" to suit their needs. As in, their genes mutate based upon their own will in their lifetime to be advantageous to them. I call that complete b.s.
evolution at best is still completely random. Mutations happen to occur, and some of those happen to be advantageous, or cause other species with similar genes to die out. It's not as if a giraffe is getting a longer neck overtime so it can eat, or a fish is losing its eyesight overtime because it doesn't need it in a cave. It's just, some random mutation occurs and it just so happens that that mutation proves to get rid of all other species without that mutation.
Andy, my view on evolution used to be: yeah sure, it makes scietific sense... but it seems unbelievably convinent. It sounds like you are sort of at that state
( ... )
Andy, I am actually going to completely avoid having a conversation with you about the empirical veracity of scientific theory. What I will argue with you is your blatantly wrong characterization and apparent misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. You can believe what you want, but it only seems appropriate that you properly understand it before you choose to reject it, and multiple statements both in the entry and in your response to comments indicate that you fail to grasp the details of evolutionary theory. We'll talk about it on AIM sometime.
Comments 12
Reply
Well, I know mutations can occur at sexual intercourse, and if that mutated offspring breeds it will create another offspring that is not only mutated like it's parent as being significantly different from the rest of its parents species, but it will also vary somewhat from it's parent as well.
I was thinking more along the lines of like say, a giraffe's evolving overtime to have longer necks to be able to reach their food. I have no reason to believe that mutations would occur in favor of helping the species adapt overtime. The only way that could be possible is if an organisms genes mutated during their lifetime. Otherwise you'd basically have to say their genes have some kind of intelligence in knowing to mutate, and to mutate exactly how to fit their needs.
I am saying that the evidence suggesting that organisms genetic codes in fact do mutate during their life times is ( ... )
Reply
Reply
It's too difficult for me to possible argue anything about that here on livejournal, that'd have to be on aim.
Basically what I was responding to was the fact that some people were claiming that species "evolve" to suit their needs. As in, their genes mutate based upon their own will in their lifetime to be advantageous to them. I call that complete b.s.
evolution at best is still completely random. Mutations happen to occur, and some of those happen to be advantageous, or cause other species with similar genes to die out. It's not as if a giraffe is getting a longer neck overtime so it can eat, or a fish is losing its eyesight overtime because it doesn't need it in a cave. It's just, some random mutation occurs and it just so happens that that mutation proves to get rid of all other species without that mutation.
Reply
Reply
-Alton
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment