The two driving forces of evolution are natural selection and random mutations. Random mutations cause the physical changes and natural selection saves them.
Now is there any evidence that RMs can create the new parts necessary to go from let's say a single cell to a man? I'm not speaking of RMs acting on genetic material already present in the creature but the ability of RMs to create the new parts needed to go from a simple cell to a man. Is there any evidence that RMs can create such parts.
And if not should we not rightly question the whole theory since one of it's major and necessary functions can not be proven?
Questioning Evolution
Questioning Evolution
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"He who learns must suffer.Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." Aeschylus
Yes!And if not should we not rightly question the whole theory since one of it's major and necessary functions can not be proven?
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
james wrote:
tradtionally, evolutionists dont believe, for example, that a fish was suddenly born with lungs and legs due to a RM. they would say the process was more gradual. some might think this (punctuated equilibrium) but i dont think this is the prevailing view.
i always think of polar bears in this context, because i think they are a good example of natural selection (but not evolution). presumably polar bears were not always white; they were regular bears that, through a RM or series of same, experienced a change in the way their bodies colored hair. presumably white colored bears were better suited in the arctic (camouflage etc) and more white bears survived than dark bears, resulting in all white bears in the arctic. i know this is simplistic, but numerous examples are evident. (of course, i realize that you might say that God could have created polar bears to be white and placed them in the arctic). this certainly may be true. i happen to lean toward OE creationism, and i do believe that natural selection is a true phenomenon(i.e. survival of the fittest)- although i dont believe in macroevolution.
TK
i am no evolutionist, but one would likely ask "what do you mean by 'parts'"?Is there any evidence that RMs can create such parts.
tradtionally, evolutionists dont believe, for example, that a fish was suddenly born with lungs and legs due to a RM. they would say the process was more gradual. some might think this (punctuated equilibrium) but i dont think this is the prevailing view.
i always think of polar bears in this context, because i think they are a good example of natural selection (but not evolution). presumably polar bears were not always white; they were regular bears that, through a RM or series of same, experienced a change in the way their bodies colored hair. presumably white colored bears were better suited in the arctic (camouflage etc) and more white bears survived than dark bears, resulting in all white bears in the arctic. i know this is simplistic, but numerous examples are evident. (of course, i realize that you might say that God could have created polar bears to be white and placed them in the arctic). this certainly may be true. i happen to lean toward OE creationism, and i do believe that natural selection is a true phenomenon(i.e. survival of the fittest)- although i dont believe in macroevolution.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
TK, I have no problem with NS, I think that is evident. But I do not see evidence that RM can create new parts - and I do mean new parts. Just think of how many systems and parts that a man has over a single cell. We know that RM can work on existing parts (mostly to harm) but where is the evidence that RM can create the necessary parts to begin with?TK wrote:james wrote:
i am no evolutionist, but one would likely ask "what do you mean by 'parts'"?Is there any evidence that RMs can create such parts.
tradtionally, evolutionists dont believe, for example, that a fish was suddenly born with lungs and legs due to a RM. they would say the process was more gradual. some might think this (punctuated equilibrium) but i dont think this is the prevailing view.
i always think of polar bears in this context, because i think they are a good example of natural selection (but not evolution). presumably polar bears were not always white; they were regular bears that, through a RM or series of same, experienced a change in the way their bodies colored hair. presumably white colored bears were better suited in the arctic (camouflage etc) and more white bears survived than dark bears, resulting in all white bears in the arctic. i know this is simplistic, but numerous examples are evident. (of course, i realize that you might say that God could have created polar bears to be white and placed them in the arctic). this certainly may be true. i happen to lean toward OE creationism, and i do believe that natural selection is a true phenomenon(i.e. survival of the fittest)- although i dont believe in macroevolution.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"He who learns must suffer.Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." Aeschylus
vestigial organs have always caused problems for evolutionists as well; e.g. the human appendix or male nipples. if evolutionary theory is correct, men either nursed babies in the past (but nipples havent yet been selected out) or we will in the future. yuck.
i agree with you that NS does not seem to account for dramatic radical change in forms. let think about this- if life started from a single cell, there are now many millions of different life forms(plants, fungi, animals, etc), all developed from an initial single cell, through a process of gradual change over the millenia. even if the earth IS 5 billions years old, that simply is not enough time to account for the diversity we see today. how could it be?
TK
i agree with you that NS does not seem to account for dramatic radical change in forms. let think about this- if life started from a single cell, there are now many millions of different life forms(plants, fungi, animals, etc), all developed from an initial single cell, through a process of gradual change over the millenia. even if the earth IS 5 billions years old, that simply is not enough time to account for the diversity we see today. how could it be?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
I agree, but I wish there was an evolutionist around here. I do not believe that they have any evidence that RM can create new parts. Yes, we see RMs acting on existing parts, but never actually creating a new part. So it is a position of blind faith...TK wrote:vestigial organs have always caused problems for evolutionists as well; e.g. the human appendix or male nipples. if evolutionary theory is correct, men either nursed babies in the past (but nipples havent yet been selected out) or we will in the future. yuck.
i agree with you that NS does not seem to account for dramatic radical change in forms. let think about this- if life started from a single cell, there are now many millions of different life forms(plants, fungi, animals, etc), all developed from an initial single cell, through a process of gradual change over the millenia. even if the earth IS 5 billions years old, that simply is not enough time to account for the diversity we see today. how could it be?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"He who learns must suffer.Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." Aeschylus
i am sure Asimov who posts here believes in evolution (by default)- maybe he has some input into this. i guarantee that an evolutionist would have an answer for you.
TK
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Hey TK, just hours after you wrote this, scientists released to the media that they now believe the appendix does have a use. How's that for timing!vestigial organs have always caused problems for evolutionists as well; e.g. the human appendix or male nipples
Appendix May Be Useful
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Avatar...My daughter and I standing on a glass floor. well over 1000 feet above ground at the CN Tower in Toronto...the tiny green dots beside my left foot are trees.
Actually, there's no need to go to evolution for that one. Just grab a copy of "Why Do Men Have Nipples?" (a gift from a friend for my last birthday):TK wrote:wow- guess we're down to male nipples!
To me, navel lint is more of a mystery......Why Do Men Have Nipples, page 61 wrote:Although females have the mammary glands, we all start out in a similar way in the embryo. During development, the embryo follows a female template until about six weeks, when the male sex chromosome kicks in for a male embryo. The embryo then begins to develop all of its male characteristics. Men are thus left with nipples and also with some breast tissue.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: