Why are Rainbows Gay?

[dknv]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I agree with this. I am all for going back and forth as an interchange of thoughts and information. I just don't wish for it to become personal to where someone feels that their intelligence is being questioned. I think it has started to edge in that direction a few times but, I think we are still good.

Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?





Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

There plausible, common sense explanations for our big brains from both evolution theory and creation theory. Bigger brains = smarter, smarter = more survival from the evolution standpoint. The cost of our big brains is long gestation, difficult childbirth, and looooooong adolescence. This is why we developed complex social interactions, strong emotions, etc. They are necessary components of the overall "gameplan" for our species. Obviously there's a lot of complexity involved that I can't get into, but nearly everything we think we know about Homo Sapiens jives with Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I understand the explanations on the creation side and I feel that they are better than what evolutionists have provided as of today. I don't know if evolution can ever be proven wrong because it is constantly changing or evolving when a conflict arises. Then you mention that evolution has a gameplan for us? Evolution is almost starting to sound like a higher power in of itself or a deity with a consciousness of its own. Some explanations make it seem like evolution makes decisions, and those decisions are not only based on necessity for survival but, out of luxury.

Looking at it from the evolutionist side, weigh the risk to benefit ratio of the explanation you posted.

Developing emotions and having a big mostly useless brain while having an extremely long and vulnerable adolescent period of life.
vs.
Being devoid of most emotion while still being able to communicate to a high level with a smaller brain and having a short adolescent period with less chance of being snuffed out before you are an adult.

I would have to argue that evolution would choose the later as it seems to have done with 99.999% of all other life. There are millions of animals that thrive with a fraction of the brain we have.

I feel that the theory of evolution is similar the way some bibles were translated. Many men who were bible translators had an idea already in their head before starting to translate. When they came upon scripture that didn't fit with what they already believed, they changed what was originally written to suit their own purpose. I feel that evolutionists very easily find new information through honest science and simply chalk it up to evolution either because they don't want to believe in creation or they don't want to be proven wrong.

[bigrobwoot]

Evolution doesn't create anything for any reason. It means that mutations were created along the way. If the mutations survive and pass it on to the next generation, then the mutation stays. It is survival of the fittest, not necessarily creation of the fittest. So just because humans survived with their emotions, don't mean they are a benefit.

Look at field mice. Their diminutive stature is definitely no benefit. But they learned to work with it, so they are still around.

[100_Percent_Juice]

If evolution doesn't create anything, then what creates these mutations? Why are these mutations created? Is it just luck of the draw at to what mutations each creature gets? Is it a case of survival of the fittest with all living creatures or only those in the animal kingdom? As far as humanity goes, I would venture that the fat, stupid, and lazy are reproducing at a much faster rate then the healthy, smart, responsible humans.

When you say that a field mouse has learned to work around being very small in stature, what do you mean by learned?

[bigrobwoot]

Darwinism applies to all living things.

It learned to burrow to survive threats, and whatever else they do to survive. I'm not a mouse-ologist, but it was the first small animal that came to mind for that example. Some of the survival traits are passed on via instinct, others via learning from their elders.

As for fat, lazy humans, I'd say that human compassion has made us defy "survival of the fittest". I'd say it originally rewarded the strong by allowing them to be the only ones to survive to breeding age. Or, like lions, only the strongest were allowed to breed, because the strong wouldn't allow the weak to touch the women. This also happens with other pack animals. Again, not a biologist, so I'm not gonna get too far into this, but I'd say exemptions are hard to list. Eventually, human compassion and medical advances meant that nearly everyone can survive to breeding age. Now, only the ability to breed is rewarded with furthering the species. If you've seen idiocracy, you've seen this idea at it's most ludacris, and yet it drives the point home pretty clearly. Basically, those concerned with being financially capable of raising a family are cautious and patient to do so, and only have a small number of children, if any at all. These are generally the smartest people. The people who don't concern themselves with things like "success" and "well-being" have children young, and they have a lot of them. Since doctors basically don't allow natural selection to run its course, when these people blow their genitals off with fireworks, doctors save them so they can still mate. There is no natural selection anymore, just people breeding and breeding.

[bigrobwoot]

Oops, forgot to address a couple things:

Yes, the mutations are luck of the draw.

Natural selection applies to all living things, even plants. The biggest, tallest trees weather the most storms, and block the sun of the small, weak trees, killing them off. Etc, etc.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Why wouldn't the oceans be as saline then as they are now? Not all lakes have an outlet. The great salt lake is a prime example. So is pyramid lake. Salinity/TDS (total dissolved solids) wasn't an issue in pyramid until the wastewater treatment plant started dumping in there. AFAIK, it isn't as saline as the ocean yet. It should be, since it would have been saline from mixing with the oceans, and then adding salinity/TDS from the treated wastewater. That is the only local lake example I can think of, but I'm not a geologist or hydrologist.

Because every geologist on the planet will tell you that salts are added to the oceans by erosion of rocks that contain minerals with salt, and that it is an ongoing process. The oceans are not saline by themselves without it being added...therefore, the saline concentration of the oceans is constantly increasing. Using landlocked lakes isn't a good exmaple because there are so few of them...most (99%) of all lakes have an outlet of some kind, and as long as they have freshwater sources, any salt they might have acumulated from floodwater would be flushed out.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Nothing kills plants like salinity. How long was the earth underwater during this flood? I seem to remember it being years, but I don't remember for sure. All of the salt in the water also would have destroyed all of the soil on earth for growing for years. I'd also guess that there is only a 1 in 4 chance that the plants were in the seed-producing season. But our spring isn't the same as australia's spring, so where did all of the different plants' seeds come from?

Once again, it would be a huge assumption to think that the oceans were as salty back then as they are now...the simple fact that the oceans only contain about 3.6% salt is an indicator that they aren't nearly as old as everyone thinks they are. If the oceans were millions of years old, the salt content should be MUCH higher. Next, the entire flood took a grand total of 14 months, but the earth would have been coverd for only about 2/3 of the time. And if the oceans weren't nearly as salty, then plant seeds (and plants) could have conceivably survived.

Salt water does not "destroy" soil...just lok at the coastlins of both Oregon and Washington...100 foot redwood trees growing in rocks right next to the ocean, and frequently soaked with salt water. Also, regardless of "seed-producing seasons", seeds are in the ground all the time. They fall off the plants and wait until conditions are right to sprout. Seeds are also spread by wind, birds and animals even today, so having a variety on different continents isn't an issue.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Would you say that these mutations are still happening today? If so, what would you say one of the more recent events would be? The reason I ask is because I think most evolution theorists, similar to you, refer to animals as having learned and instinct being passed on. Shouldn't that still be happening with animals? What mutations would you say, if any, have happened with humans in the last few thousands of years other than continual learning?

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I don't know why so many discussions on this forum have to turn into a pissing match of who is more educated. There is nobody alive today who was around to physically witness any of this. Neither side (evolutionist/creationist) has a complete, highly detailed, word for word account of the beginning of the earth, mankind, or the flood. There will always be arguments on both sides as to why these issues are true or untrue.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to get into a "pissing match" about education, I am just tired of people assuming that, because I don't believe in evolution, that somehow I am uneducated or don't "understand" things like geology and biology...as someone implied was the case. It was my education in geology that brought me to my beliefs about creationism, not the other way around, as some might (and have) assume. I am also tired of hearing people who have little or no "education" in science making comments like they know what they are talking about...when in reality, all they know is what they were told on certain tv channels. I have no problems whatsoever if people want to believe in evolution. It just gets a little tiresome when those people say that my ideas and opinions are "silly" and "irresponsible" just because I have a different worldview. I believe in a God that I cannot see, and believe in a creaiton I was not present to witness...evolutionists believe in a Big Bang they did not witness and evolution that they cannot see happening. Both require faith. So why is my viewpoint "silly" and theirs is rational? Personally, I don't really expect anything different from them, but it would just be nice if they were as willing to at least consider our point of view, rather than just dismissing it out of hand.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Evolution doesn't create anything for any reason. It means that mutations were created along the way. If the mutations survive and pass it on to the next generation, then the mutation stays. It is survival of the fittest, not necessarily creation of the fittest. So just because humans survived with their emotions, don't mean they are a benefit.

Look at field mice. Their diminutive stature is definitely no benefit. But they learned to work with it, so they are still around.

Here is something for you to consider about the whole "survival of the fittest thing". When you get right down to it, Darwinian evolution requires new information to be added to the DNA (ie, developing legs where none existed before). No living thing can develop a feature that was not coded in the DNA beforehand, since any feature requires a DNA "blueprint" in order to develop. Mutations cannot do this since a mutation is damage to an existing fragment of DNA. Damaging something does not make something new. Every microbiologist and geneticist will tell you that there is no known process that can add new informaiton to DNA...period. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that means nothing, and is actually contrary to Darwinian theory. If evolution progresses because of mutations and copying mistakes in DNA, then each generation that carries these DNA errors are inferior to the unaltered originals. They would no longer be "the fittest", and therefore, would not be the ones to pass their genes to the next generation. All theory aside, just look at nature today...when a member of a group of animals develops some weird genetic mistake, it is immediately isolated and it usually dies without reproducing. Then your "mutation" gets lost and not passed on. One good real-world observation is better than a million pages of untestable theory.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

Trying to parlay such things into a claim that there was a planetary-scale flood, that all creatures not on Noah's ark perished and that all of humanity is directly descended from him is preposterous, silly, and irresponsible.

Sorry, Kevin that I didn't bring up this question for you earlier, but I was a little busy answering questions...I am very curious as to why taking a literal viewpoint about Genesis would be "irresponsible". Here is Webster's dictionary definition of "irresponsible"...

Main Entry: 1ir·re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈspän(t)-sə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1648
: not responsible: as a : not answerable to higher authority <an irresponsible dictatorship> b : said or done with no sense of responsibility <irresponsible accusations> c : lacking a sense of responsibility d : unable especially mentally or financially to bear responsibility

How does my viewpoint involve any of these definitions? Is something bad going to happen to the world because I choose to believe (based on some darn good evidence) that the earth isn't old and that we didn't evolve from a rock 3.4 billion years ago? The use of the word "responsible" in any form implies that something important is hanging on my opinion about the age of the earth and of our origins...so please explain why you chose to use that word.

[cody]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Here is something for you to consider about the whole "survival of the fittest thing". When you get right down to it, Darwinian evolution requires new information to be added to the DNA (ie, developing legs where none existed before). No living thing can develop a feature that was not coded in the DNA beforehand, since any feature requires a DNA "blueprint" in order to develop. Mutations cannot do this since a mutation is damage to an existing fragment of DNA. Damaging something does not make something new. Every microbiologist and geneticist will tell you that there is no known process that can add new informaiton to DNA...period. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that means nothing, and is actually contrary to Darwinian theory. If evolution progresses because of mutations and copying mistakes in DNA, then each generation that carries these DNA errors are inferior to the unaltered originals. They would no longer be "the fittest", and therefore, would not be the ones to pass their genes to the next generation. All theory aside, just look at nature today...when a member of a group of animals develops some weird genetic mistake, it is immediately isolated and it usually dies without reproducing. Then your "mutation" gets lost and not passed on. One good real-world observation is better than a million pages of untestable theory.

You're just gonna have to deal with the fact that I get most of my science from from TV since I graduated from Junior College, but I'm still going to post in this thread.

Aren't there a multitude of examples where animals have evolved? Aren't there moths and flies that have such short life cycles that by simply changing their environment, their color or their wings change accordingly, etc? I just saw a show this week where they showed a bird that only lives in Hawaii and they showed the bird it supposedly evolved from and their bills were complete different due to the food sources available in their respective environments. Is the National Geographic channel lying to me?

And Joel, I imagine that mutations are actually encouraged by evolution, since they are part of the recipe. Mutation is a trait just like any other that evolution controls. If there weren't mutations, we couldn't evolve. And don't let language like, "encouraged" and "controls" bug you. It's not intended literally, at least to me. Evolution is a force of nature and is lifelike so it's easy to speak of it figuratively. Also, it's hard to identify mutations because they are slow gradual processes. Fish don't just sprout legs overnight. But slowly over time, they do.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Would you say that these mutations are still happening today? If so, what would you say one of the more recent events would be? The reason I ask is because I think most evolution theorists, similar to you, refer to animals as having learned and instinct being passed on. Shouldn't that still be happening with animals? What mutations would you say, if any, have happened with humans in the last few thousands of years other than continual learning?

Evolutionary changes happen all the time, but remember that the process takes extremely long periods of time to create new species or subspecies or even common characteristics. It speeds up as life grows more and more diverse but it's still not a super fast process. It's easy to look at the myriad complexities of the human body and throw up one's hands and assume it simply must be the result of God's plan. But, if you think about statistics (you know, the high school math that isn't really math) it can make sense. Genetic mutations that are terrible happen fairly frequently- congenital diseases, birth defects, etc.- and favorable ones infrequently. We're talking winning the Powerball Lottery every day for a year kind of odds. Many are also the result of very slight, repeated incremental changes. Giraffes and Zebras have a common ancestor, but the Giraffes came from a herd or herds that had just slightly longer necks and tongues, so they were just a tiny bit better at eating Acacia leaves. I could go on and on with that sort of analogy but you probably get the picture. The difference between you and a Horseshoe Crab is an astronomically high number of these tiny changes resulting from very rare errors in the chemical process of replicating DNA.

Those who study such things think the last major leap in human evolution was between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago, whereupon we became Homo Sapiens. To answer your question specifically, there haven't been any significant changes in our biological makeup in that time, though there have been many, many changes in how the average human falls into the ranges our genetic code allows. We are much, much taller on average than we were even 1,000 years ago because of changes like better diets, better medical care, etc. Our genetic code hasn't changed, but many environmental factors have.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

How does my viewpoint involve any of these definitions? Is something bad going to happen to the world because I choose to believe (based on some darn good evidence) that the earth isn't old and that we didn't evolve from a rock 3.4 billion years ago? The use of the word "responsible" in any form implies that something important is hanging on my opinion about the age of the earth and of our origins...so please explain why you chose to use that word.

As you said, you choose to believe that the evidence supports your belief in the events of Genesis being literally true. Very, very, very few people with your level of education (or mine for that matter) would agree with your conclusion, and I'd be very surprised if you could find anyone who interprets the geological record similarly to you without also believing fully in Creation and the Bible's version of events.

What I find irresponsible is the insistence by people that the Bible is infallible despite the overwhelming evidence that mankind is anything but. More importantly, your God can happily coexist with what the vast majority of what science currently believes to be true regarding the age of the universe and the processes that led from whatever the very beginning was, to where we are now. Very little of what I view as good science can coexist with what the Bible says. Nothing in modern-day science indicates that there is not, cannot be, or even probably is no infallible, omnipotent God. Trying to make empirical research fit your conclusions is most definitely irresponsible.

Lastly, since it seems important to you, no I did not learn geology and biology from cable TV. What I know of geology I learned from Dave Boden, and what I learned of biology and evolution largely comes from my high school biology teacher. I've added to both of those topics among many, many others over the years simply by being curious about the world around me. I've never, ever tried to make what I learn fit a preconceived notion.

I'm not going to try to debate you on the Truth About Geology, because I don't need to. You've obviously had this discussion more than once with people who have educations equal to yours, or better, and still you take a contrary position. Neither of us is going to accept the other's position as closer to the truth, so there's nowhere for the discussion to go but down. The best we can hope for is to agree to disagree, and hope to maybe find some common ground in the next thread about a "taboo" topic.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Here is something for you to consider about the whole "survival of the fittest thing". When you get right down to it, Darwinian evolution requires new information to be added to the DNA (ie, developing legs where none existed before). No living thing can develop a feature that was not coded in the DNA beforehand, since any feature requires a DNA "blueprint" in order to develop. Mutations cannot do this since a mutation is damage to an existing fragment of DNA. Damaging something does not make something new. Every microbiologist and geneticist will tell you that there is no known process that can add new informaiton to DNA...period. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that means nothing, and is actually contrary to Darwinian theory. If evolution progresses because of mutations and copying mistakes in DNA, then each generation that carries these DNA errors are inferior to the unaltered originals. They would no longer be "the fittest", and therefore, would not be the ones to pass their genes to the next generation. All theory aside, just look at nature today...when a member of a group of animals develops some weird genetic mistake, it is immediately isolated and it usually dies without reproducing. Then your "mutation" gets lost and not passed on. One good real-world observation is better than a million pages of untestable theory.

Are you sure about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome

There's one example of "information" being added to DNA. You're supposed to have 46 chromosomes, paired off. Where did the 47th that 1 in 500 males are born with come from? Neither of their parents had it. So is it so hard to see where a different change in the single copy of genetic code that one individual of one species has one tiny flaw in it? And how on very, very rare occasions that tiny flaw results in some new characteristic that is beneficial to that individual and the progeny that inherit the flaw? And how repeating this process a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times can result in fantastically complex creatures?

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by cody

You're just gonna have to deal with the fact that I get most of my science from from TV since I graduated from Junior College, but I'm still going to post in this thread.

Aren't there a multitude of examples where animals have evolved? Aren't there moths and flies that have such short life cycles that by simply changing their environment, their color or their wings change accordingly, etc? I just saw a show this week where they showed a bird that only lives in Hawaii and they showed the bird it supposedly evolved from and their bills were complete different due to the food sources available in their respective environments. Is the National Geographic channel lying to me?

And Joel, I imagine that mutations are actually encouraged by evolution, since they are part of the recipe. Mutation is a trait just like any other that evolution controls. If there weren't mutations, we couldn't evolve. And don't let language like, "encouraged" and "controls" bug you. It's not intended literally, at least to me. Evolution is a force of nature and is lifelike so it's easy to speak of it figuratively. Also, it's hard to identify mutations because they are slow gradual processes. Fish don't just sprout legs overnight. But slowly over time, they do.

I think some of you may be getting a little confused with the issue at hand. Darwin talked about 2 kinds of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is refering to small changes in a species like the different variations of birds or types of dog or black, white, mexican, and asian people etc. This theory does not conflict with the bible. Genesis 1:25 says that God made them each one "according to its kind". The ability to change is built into the DNA of each kind of creature.

Macro-evolution is his theory that all life came from a common ancestor. Honest science does not back this up as of today. They are still searching for the "missing link" or fossils of a creature that appear to be in that transition phase or half-evolved into something else. There are over 7 billion people on earth today. Living every type of lifestyle and in almost every climate. Why have we not seen (at least to my knowledge) any examples of humans evolving into something other than human? Wings, gills, scales, another set of arms or legs? If you take into account the number of different living creatures and how diverse they are, we should be seeing evolution popping up all over the place. Shouldn't we?

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Would you say that these mutations are still happening today? If so, what would you say one of the more recent events would be? The reason I ask is because I think most evolution theorists, similar to you, refer to animals as having learned and instinct being passed on. Shouldn't that still be happening with animals? What mutations would you say, if any, have happened with humans in the last few thousands of years other than continual learning?

Here are plenty of bad mutations:

http://www.mclol.com/funny-articles/...ve-no-use-for/

Here's an example of a good one:

http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/...al_muscle.html

here's a fish with "legs":

http://imagefrost.com/i/EY.jpg

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I think some of you may be getting a little confused with the issue at hand. Darwin talked about 2 kinds of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is refering to small changes in a species like the different variations of birds or types of dog or black, white, mexican, and asian people etc. This theory does not conflict with the bible. Genesis 1:25 says that God made them each one "according to its kind". The ability to change is built into the DNA of each kind of creature.

Macro-evolution is his theory that all life came from a common ancestor. Honest science does not back this up as of today. They are still searching for the "missing link" or fossils of a creature that appear to be in that transition phase or half-evolved into something else. There are over 7 billion people on earth today. Living every type of lifestyle and in almost every climate. Why have we not seen (at least to my knowledge) any examples of humans evolving into something other than human? Wings, gills, scales, another set of arms or legs? If you take into account the number of different living creatures and how diverse they are, we should be seeing evolution popping up all over the place. Shouldn't we?

Well, I'd say Kevin gave some good examples of micro evolution.

As for macro-evolution: according to HighDesertSuby, it takes a very specific set of events in order to create fossils. Due to his expertise in the area, I'll take his word for it. If that's true, then it isn't unreasonable that there aren't fossils of a "missing link".

I'd also say that 10,000ish years isn't enough for us to have evolved into something different. We are significantly different from cro-magnon man. Our brow is smaller, our faces aren't as sloped, our backs aren't as hunched, we're taller and we live longer. These things can be filed under micro-evolution, IMO. Over time, more than tens of thousands of years, closer to millions, those small changes turn into big changes, and micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution.

Other examples of micro-evolution in people, due to environmental differences, are that Asian people are usually shorter than white people, white people have fair skin from lack of a need of pigment, black people have that extra calf muscle (kidding), native Americans have slower metabolisms due to the difficulty of finding food way back when and their lack of industrialization until we forced them to, etc.

Maybe the mutations that people have are small things on their way to larger things. Since we have absolutely no idea what the next step of evolution is, we don't know what to look for. If the next step is that people will become 10-foot-tall giants, look to centers in the NBA as proof towards that. If our future is to be 300-lb, gorilla-like monsters, look at people with myostatin deficiencies. And so on. I'd also suggest that if anyone did develop gills or wings in the past, they were killed off due to lack of survival skills, since those things wouldn't have been fully developed. People with wing-hands wouldn't be able to grip anything, which is key to human survival. People with partial gills would have problems breathing, and would be left behind.

Another suggestion I would make is that our natural aversion of the "abnormal" is an evolutionary trait developed to pass on only the best genetics. As mean as it is, what is your knee-jerk reaction when you see someone with a deformity? Before all of the PC issues of recent history, I'm sure it would have been near impossible for them to find a mate.

[cody]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I think some of you may be getting a little confused with the issue at hand. Darwin talked about 2 kinds of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is refering to small changes in a species like the different variations of birds or types of dog or black, white, mexican, and asian people etc. This theory does not conflict with the bible. Genesis 1:25 says that God made them each one "according to its kind". The ability to change is built into the DNA of each kind of creature.

Macro-evolution is his theory that all life came from a common ancestor. Honest science does not back this up as of today. They are still searching for the "missing link" or fossils of a creature that appear to be in that transition phase or half-evolved into something else. There are over 7 billion people on earth today. Living every type of lifestyle and in almost every climate. Why have we not seen (at least to my knowledge) any examples of humans evolving into something other than human? Wings, gills, scales, another set of arms or legs? If you take into account the number of different living creatures and how diverse they are, we should be seeing evolution popping up all over the place. Shouldn't we?

So you feel that macro evolution should be happening fast enough for us to witness it (or it doesn't exist)? Sorry, I'm still "confused".

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Here are plenty of bad mutations:

http://www.mclol.com/funny-articles/...ve-no-use-for/

Here's an example of a good one:

http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/...al_muscle.html

here's a fish with "legs":

http://imagefrost.com/i/EY.jpg

I regret clicking on that first link. Thanks Rob. I don't think that I personally would consider mutations to be evolution. A person can take drugs or sit on the microwave and it can cause a mutation in their children. Humans are all imperfect and with the number of variables in life, problems arise. My son has an abnormality in his pancreas causing him to have hyperinsulinism. This condition can be passed on from a parent but genetic testing has shown that neither my wife nor myself passed it to him.

The second link is simply a condition that you wish you had. In reality I would not consider that a good mutation though. Your body needs fat to function properly. From a cosmetic standpoint, that is greatly desired. In a real life application that person would probably run out of food to support the additional muscle growth and not survive compared to someone who can store fat to account for periods of low food intake. Clearly you and I have talked a lot about how muscle and food and all those things come into play so we don't really need to go into that.

The third link is clearly a fish with arms, not legs. I find that these beliefs require more faith than mine do. To say that there is a constant stream of mutations flowing through life that are negative and then every so many billion years a good mutation enters the mix and provides a step in a good direction is difficult to accept. Then for that single instance of mutation to be retained and passed on from that moment forward is mathematically even more difficult to accept. Then for that same string of good mutated creatures to receive yet another good mutation and another and another and another and continue to pass them on without being wiped out is mathematically impossible on the highest level. Kevin referred to odds like winning the lottery every day for a year. If that fish which we still see today, was the beginning of the evolution of mankind, why is it still here? Why didn't they all evolve into something else or die out because of being inferior?

I think perhaps some people don't believe we were created simply because that answer is not complex enough.

Its nothing against anyone in this thread but, I will never be able to believe that this fish (regardless of how old the earth is)


was able to eventually turn into this.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by cody

So you feel that macro evolution should be happening fast enough for us to witness it (or it doesn't exist)? Sorry, I'm still "confused".

I think it doesn't exist. Science hasn't proven that it does. To correctly assume the theory, it would probably not be visible if it took as long as scientists speculate. I also didn't mean to imply that you are confused, bad choice of words. I was mainly trying to make sure we are all on the same page. Instead of spending a lot of time arguing that bible thumpers do not recognize micro-evo or the small changes in each family of animals when in fact it is the theory of macro-evo that we differ on.

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I regret clicking on that first link. Thanks Rob. I don't think that I personally would consider mutations to be evolution. A person can take drugs or sit on the microwave and it can cause a mutation in their children. Humans are all imperfect and with the number of variables in life, problems arise. My son has an abnormality in his pancreas causing him to have hyperinsulinism. This condition can be passed on from a parent but genetic testing has shown that neither my wife nor myself passed it to him.

The second link is simply a condition that you wish you had. In reality I would not consider that a good mutation though. Your body needs fat to function properly. From a cosmetic standpoint, that is greatly desired. In a real life application that person would probably run out of food to support the additional muscle growth and not survive compared to someone who can store fat to account for periods of low food intake. Clearly you and I have talked a lot about how muscle and food and all those things come into play so we don't really need to go into that.

The third link is clearly a fish with arms, not legs. I find that these beliefs require more faith than mine do. To say that there is a constant stream of mutations flowing through life that are negative and then every so many billion years a good mutation enters the mix and provides a step in a good direction is difficult to accept. Then for that single instance of mutation to be retained and passed on from that moment forward is mathematically even more difficult to accept. Then for that same string of good mutated creatures to receive yet another good mutation and another and another and another and continue to pass them on without being wiped out is mathematically impossible on the highest level. Kevin referred to odds like winning the lottery every day for a year. If that fish which we still see today, was the beginning of the evolution of mankind, why is it still here? Why didn't they all evolve into something else or die out because of being inferior?

I think perhaps some people don't believe we were created simply because that answer is not complex enough.

Its nothing against anyone in this thread but, I will never be able to believe that this fish (regardless of how old the earth is)

was able to eventually turn into this.

The reason people developed myostatin is for exactly the reason you stated. People couldn't feed themselves enough on a hunter/gatherer diet. And you might not quite understand what it is. Myostatin keeps you from gaining too much muscle. So if you had a myostatin deficiency, it's not that you couldn't put on fat, it's that you could very easily put on muscle. The reason everyone in the media with it is so shredded is because they are either 8 years old, or professional bodybuilders on a bodybuilder's diet.

I have neve claimed that I don't have "faith" in evolution just as much as you have "faith" in creation. To do so would be ignorant. You can find as much evidence as you want, but no one is alive long enough to witness any real proof of evolution, it is too slow a process. That is what makes these conversations fun, is that both sides are unproveable.

Why is it so hard to accept that mutations carry on like that? Look at sickle cell disease. People can be carriers, but not possess the traits. It takes both parents having the gene in order for the child to have the disease. Same with gingers Small things like that, but that have an evolutionary advantage, over years and years, that's evolution, my friend.

[bigrobwoot]

Some other things to think about regarding breeding:

It isn't necessarily the strongest that pass on their seeds. It is only the ones that survive long enough to breed. If it were only the strongest people that bred, there wouldn't be any engineers

Also, think about what attracts you to someone right when you see them. It is all things to make you want to pass the strongest traits to your offspring. Girls with nice bodies are usually in shape, which means that they would be able to escape danger more easily. Buff guys can defend the girls, and can be more dominant in the pack, and can hunt more effectively. All these knee-jerk reactions towards the opposite sex are attractions to strong evolutionary traits for humans.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Some other things to think about regarding breeding:

It isn't necessarily the strongest that pass on their seeds. It is only the ones that survive long enough to breed. If it were only the strongest people that bred, there wouldn't be any engineers

That. just. happened!

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Also, think about what attracts you to someone right when you see them. It is all things to make you want to pass the strongest traits to your offspring. Girls with nice bodies are usually in shape, which means that they would be able to escape danger more easily. Buff guys can defend the girls, and can be more dominant in the pack, and can hunt more effectively. All these knee-jerk reactions towards the opposite sex are attractions to strong evolutionary traits for humans.

Robb, you and I both know that when you see a hot chick, the thought of children is probably the furthest thing from your mind. Attractiveness is HIGHLY influenced by media and perception. Not to get into racism but how would your theory work in a place like china where to be honest, most everyone has the same color hair and is proportionally very similar in size? Also, just because a girl is skinny doesn't mean she is in shape. When you talk about escaping danger, I really don't think it matters how in shape you are. Even the most in shape man/woman can be killed by any number of animals even if you have the human advantage of a weapon.

Thinking in terms of evolution ,why are there male and female of most every species? Wouldn't it have been much easier on evolution if there was a single sex that could reproduce on its own or with another member of the same sex? Woman has been dominated by Man since the beginning (whatever that means to each person) and is referred to as the weaker sex. So why are they here? "If you didn't have that womb... something something... voted off the island...". I am not a sexist and I do not intent to hurt any feelings. I find it hard to believe that the first male fish with legs walked up on the beach only to find a female fish walking up on the beach "Hey, whats a fish like you doing on a beach like this? Lets mate so we can pass these legs on to our kids". In swoops seagull, roll credits.