[loser]

Sorry for the hiatus all. This is a debate in which I am very interested but I have hardly been outside the Philosophy and Religion Forum and I totally forgot about this thread.

These two subjects would explain random mutation within genes.

That's a fallacy. There are no random mutations. ALL are cause and effect.

And yet I am not the one that says things like... Quote: Quote by: loser Did we evolve away from having body fur so that we would have to kill animals and then make coats from their fur in order to survive in these conditions? "We" didn't do anything and saying it in the first place shows your lack of education...so please, re-read Chapter 1.

Then you agree that we haven't evolved after all. Wow, didn't expect that.

Oh, and zippers...I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

Quote: Or perhaps modern man has changed very little from the very first man. Or perhaps that would go against all the evidence that has been found in the fossil record.

If there was any fossil record "evidence" supporting evolution's outrageous claims, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The details surrounding and supporting the ToE are certainly changing and growing as we learn more, but the theory that Darwin managed to piece together is still fully intact.

That statement in itself is very misleading. The ToE is almost bereft of any support and Darwin's theory that evolution is fueled by natural selection is all but defunct.

Because there are significantly more people than in the past, there's likely quite a bit more random mutations occurring as a whole, but it's not as if the percentage of mutations is necessarily growing.

Once again, the false assumption of random mutations is coloring judgment. Mutations are never random, they happen for a reason.

Another factor in what you said, of course, would be that many people who had been isolated for geographic reasons can, due to technology, now come together and have children, which allows for quite a bit of genetic change

Genetic change is reasonable...so much less pretentious than evolution.

Quote by: scofield As for hair-loss, this is still a largly unanswered question. Actually, that's probably not an accurate statement; in truth there are many answers, just nothing definitive. I'd say that your second sentence is probably more accurate than your first. The savanna hypothesis is extremely popular, although it has its flaws. I tend to buy into the aquatic hypothesis quite a bit more, although it, too, is in need of fine-tuning.

I've got an idea...dismiss it completely, a much better solution.

I fully agree that the ToE is here to stay, and that we've just begun to understand it; after all, the human genome was mapped only recently.

The human genome and DNA in general has put nails in the coffin of the ToE. Evolution cannot explain the genetic code found in every living cell. This code is a complex language set with precise instructions on how to fabricate basic needed parts such as proteins. It is information and it is information and instructions and a complex language that could only have its origins in intelligent life.

Our purely molecular and chemical predecessors ending with abiogensis, and perhaps beginning with some sort of big bang, still requires much explaination, and I imagine that none of us will be fortunate enough to have our questions answered within this lifetime. That being said, there is far too much evidence supporting evolution to ignore the theory's implications.

If you say something enough times, can you actually begin to believe it? Jubloz, I wish I could comfort you by agreeing with your statement but I can't. There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there never will be. The reason is obvious: it's not happening now, it won't happen in the future, and it didn't happen in the past. Humans are humans, they were human in the past, and they will be human in the future. Monkeys were monkeys, are monkeys, and will be monkeys as long as they exist. Things change, things adapt, but they don't evolve (as evolution is taught). We don't have a common ancestor except the commonality of our organic chemical makeup. Inherent diversity is by design. Maybe that's not a comfortable thought for many but it is a reality, nontheless. All humans have a common ancestor: a human!

Although, keep in mind, many genetic mutations are neither beneficial or harmful, and, furthermore, many traits we're quick to label as detremental actually have advantages in extreme circumstances, such as the abundance of cases of sickle cell enema, a lethal genetically inherited disease, that also protects against malaria by preventing the malaria virus from attaching to the person's sickle-shaped blood cells.

An example of cause and effect...purpose.

Also, just to nitpick, no evolutionary biologist is claiming that we evolved from monkeys, but we do share a distant common ancestor with them

We have different (very distant) ancestors. What we share is a Creator.

It is important to realize there's a distinction between monkeys and great apes (pongidae ).

Both of which are distinctly not human.

Yep. Biology aside, external physical factors play a huge role in genetic mutation, and can vary according to exposure to radiation or chemicals. As if reproduction didn't complicate things enough, all other environmental factors may come into play.

Yes, indeed, cause and effect...purposeful and designed.

"loser", you do seem to have a common misunderstanding of evolution.

Yet things are rarely as they seem.

It would be, perhaps, more accurate to say that evolution is spawned by "chance".

Convenient, perhaps, but not accurate.

Since loser is not back I would assume that he is studying Chapter 1 of his Biology book.

I'm back!!!

It goes back to the fact that there are some things about the origins of life we don't know. We who appreciate science are willing to accept that while considering that someday we may know or perhaps we'll never know. But the lack of a scientific answer does not automatically suppose a theistic answer. In other words, when science says, "we don't know", that does not mean that god did it.

This is so true. Yet, the reverse is true, also...it does not PRECLUDE a theistic answer or the existence of God. It is a wise man who does not jump to hasty conclusions.

Biologists are slowing learning how to create life from non-life, so keep watching.

Well, after all, man was created in the image of God. Why should it surprise anyone that they are approaching the ability of God...ever learning, and, yet, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It's already possible to create a virus from scratch (although whether a virus classifies as life is debatable), and recently some geneticists were able to insert the code of one bacterium into another, turning the second bacterium into a clone. This is actually pretty amazing when you think about it, because it's, albeit on a smaller level, the equivalent of my putting all of my DNA into you and your body turning into an exact copy of me. To my knowledge, there's some very promising programs working on actually piecing together an entirely new cell from scratch.

It's a lot easier when you already have the code in existence to copy. Let's see them come up with a new kind of code that will create a new kind of cell or life (though it would still be based on prior existent knowledge).

Anywaaayyy... Besides ToE, there are no other explanations that do a better job at explaining how life changes over time.

Well, of course there is...that's what I'm trying to tell you. We can have tremendous amounts of change, even 'speciation', without having to resort to pseudo-science fantasy such as that proposed by Darwin.

I'll just skip the chase to the catch, since you have a specific goal in mind; how about the existence of an invisible Him with a complete lack of evidence, yet a heap of evidence to the contrary? Yes, accepting the invisible Him would be irrational.

Now, it's obvious (using logic) that you are referring to God. You make two false claims/assumptions: 1) a complete lack of evidence; 2) a heap of evidence to the contrary.

If one looks at this objectively, one must concede that the evidence for the existence of God far exceeds the evidence to the contrary. I declare your evidence is more invisible than God Himself!