-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
that's pretty much exactly what physics says. actually a little more, but that's the ballpark. no argument here.
you know, because we have an enormous magnetic field here, we could build conductors in orbit around the earth, and the rotation of the earth itself & her field with her would generate electrical current in them - potentially a lot of it.
only problem is it would slow the earth down incrementally. that, and NASA gets its budget cut further every year since we made it to the moon.
so i got this venture capital idea and i need a few hundred billion dollars...
yeah this is off topic. sorry. but since someone mentioned "dynamo" well..
I agree that the consequences of stopping the Earth's rotation would be catastrophic. The thing I like to keep in mind is that when this story was originally told it was only the Sun that need stop in the sky because the Earth was thought motionless. When viewed this way the difficulties for us are removed. The most plausible explanation is that this was simply a story told in ancient times – a legend. We know the ancients were good at producing legends. If this account was not in the Bible, but in a Greek or Roman legend, no one would believe the tale. It would still be told. I would still be a beloved legend, but it wouldn't be considered historical.
T
Jamie, your position has obviously led you to have a low opinion of the authority of God's Word. I can see the evidence throughout your posts. It's sad, really. I'm all for opening up discussion for other options, but if a person calls themself a Christian, they jolly well better hold to their book of faith (the Bible) as the ultimate written record of God's Truth. Otherwise they can introduce any strange beliefs and pack them into the Bible, rather than let the Bible define everything they see around them. Holding Science above Scripture is an extremely dangerous practice. Scripture interprets scripture. Science (as is understood by most today) is about explaining everything in a purely natural manner, to discredit/disallow any form of divine creator and divine intervention. Therefore, to be consistent, a Christian can't allow evolutionary thinking or day-age beliefs or any of that to have a foothold in their faith.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we've discussed most of this before.
Random mutations produced the different races of man. That's an apparent creative result even if it’s by pure chance.
The genes that control growth of the right side also control growth of the left side. That is why siblings of different stature all have well proportioned limbs. Do pygmies have mismatched limbs? No! This is a straw man argument and creates no issues for evolution.
However, I grew up with a kid in my neighbourhood who through a genetic mutation did have one leg shorter than the other. When he was about 12 the shorter leg was amputated.
And you know this how? Forget the creation sites that say this is not possible, do you know enough about biology to explain why it can't happen?
There are species that can switches back and forth between male and female, and species that can reproduce asexually, in fact most lower organisms reproduce this way.
I say this is wrong.
How can you say life from non-life is not generated at mid-ocean vents on a regular basis? You can't say because you don't know. Because it has not been observed does not mean it doesn't happen. I can't say that it is happening, but you cannot say that it isn't.
I have said it before and it is worth saying again. Sophisticated equipment would be necessary to observe chemical reactions generating self-replicating molecules. These might well be the forerunners of all life that we know, but unless you have the equipment, and unless you know where to look, you will not see it happen even if it is something that commonly occurs.
Yes, similar but not identical offspring are the hallmark of creatures that reproduce sexually. Every generation carries its own mutations, every sibling is different from the one that came before. We know that there is quite a range of geographical races of humans that have evolved on Earth. Creationists, especially, must acknowledge this as only a few thousand years ago, they believe, God reduced humans to only seven individuals from one family. Those evolved into all the races of men now on Earth and did so in far less time than required by Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists.
The races evolved from the slow accumulation of random genetic changes over about 200,000 years, according to evolutionists, or over about 4000 years according to creationists. Given additional time further random genetic change will continue to produce change. Assuming one group of humans could be isolated from all others for hundreds of thousands of years is there any guarantee that if reintroduced they would still be capable of interbreeding?
Yes, you are correct. All species give rise to offspring that are the same species as the parents, but how did Noah's great-great grandchildren, some 20,000 generations later, come to look so different from Noah? Only genetic mutations account for the difference. Each generation is a little different from the one before, and over thousands of years they can come to look quite different. Over millions of years those differences might be so great as to look like new species. In fact that is all that is being claimed. It's that simple.
This, and the other points I did not answer have nothing to do with evolution.
The evidence for evolution is self-evident. Just look to Noah and his descendants, but have you ever seen loaves or fishes multiply magically? I know you don't like to think of this miracle as magical, but this is really the only way to describe it. I've never seen evidence for magic, but I have seen evidence of evolution, as have you.
Random mutations produced the different races of man. That's an apparent creative result even if it’s by pure chance.
The genes that control growth of the right side also control growth of the left side. That is why siblings of different stature all have well proportioned limbs. Do pygmies have mismatched limbs? No! This is a straw man argument and creates no issues for evolution.
However, I grew up with a kid in my neighbourhood who through a genetic mutation did have one leg shorter than the other. When he was about 12 the shorter leg was amputated.
And you know this how? Forget the creation sites that say this is not possible, do you know enough about biology to explain why it can't happen?
There are species that can switches back and forth between male and female, and species that can reproduce asexually, in fact most lower organisms reproduce this way.
I say this is wrong.
How can you say life from non-life is not generated at mid-ocean vents on a regular basis? You can't say because you don't know. Because it has not been observed does not mean it doesn't happen. I can't say that it is happening, but you cannot say that it isn't.
I have said it before and it is worth saying again. Sophisticated equipment would be necessary to observe chemical reactions generating self-replicating molecules. These might well be the forerunners of all life that we know, but unless you have the equipment, and unless you know where to look, you will not see it happen even if it is something that commonly occurs.
Yes, similar but not identical offspring are the hallmark of creatures that reproduce sexually. Every generation carries its own mutations, every sibling is different from the one that came before. We know that there is quite a range of geographical races of humans that have evolved on Earth. Creationists, especially, must acknowledge this as only a few thousand years ago, they believe, God reduced humans to only seven individuals from one family. Those evolved into all the races of men now on Earth and did so in far less time than required by Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists.
The races evolved from the slow accumulation of random genetic changes over about 200,000 years, according to evolutionists, or over about 4000 years according to creationists. Given additional time further random genetic change will continue to produce change. Assuming one group of humans could be isolated from all others for hundreds of thousands of years is there any guarantee that if reintroduced they would still be capable of interbreeding?
Yes, you are correct. All species give rise to offspring that are the same species as the parents, but how did Noah's great-great grandchildren, some 20,000 generations later, come to look so different from Noah? Only genetic mutations account for the difference. Each generation is a little different from the one before, and over thousands of years they can come to look quite different. Over millions of years those differences might be so great as to look like new species. In fact that is all that is being claimed. It's that simple.
This, and the other points I did not answer have nothing to do with evolution.
The evidence for evolution is self-evident. Just look to Noah and his descendants, but have you ever seen loaves or fishes multiply magically? I know you don't like to think of this miracle as magical, but this is really the only way to describe it. I've never seen evidence for magic, but I have seen evidence of evolution, as have you.
I understand that you assume God is the author of the text, but you also understand that claiming such a thing happened makes no sense. It is easier to believe the story is a legend than to assume it actually happened. The ancients who first told the story assumed the Earth was motionless. It is our knowledge and understanding of the world that highlights a problem not anticipated in ancient times. We are able to recognize that the claim makes the account legendary and not historical. It is only stubbornness that causes those with scientific understanding to cling to an ancient tale as if it were a true event.
The story of the Sun standing still is easy to believe when one doesn't stop to think about it, but knowing the consequences of such an event should raise a thinking person's eyebrows. Does it not? Don't you even wonder a bit at the story's plausibility?
The story of the Sun standing still is easy to believe when one doesn't stop to think about it, but knowing the consequences of such an event should raise a thinking person's eyebrows. Does it not? Don't you even wonder a bit at the story's plausibility?
It will take some time. What I encountered before were claims that the Australopithecus fossil called Lucy was not actually a female. I looked into it and the specific evidence that, without question, showed that fossil to be a female was not mentioned. There were several other pieces of anatomical evidence pertaining to the upright gait that were also not mentioned. The creation site tried to make the point that Lucy was simply another species of ape moving about on all fours.
If you want to examine whether evidence for evolution exists the best course is to read the scientific literature. Then when you follow up with creation web sites you will notice what's not getting reported.
Another example is from the book Evolution: What the Fossils say and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero. He’s a geologist and in his book provides solid evidence that the Grand Canyon cannot have arisen from a single flood. The evidence is overwhelming, but it would mean typing out quite a lot to give you the evidence. The fact is most of my sources are from books that I own. Finding links on-line from other sources might require a fair bit of time, but perhaps I could look at your creation sources on-line and report back what they are not mentioning.
If you want to examine whether evidence for evolution exists the best course is to read the scientific literature. Then when you follow up with creation web sites you will notice what's not getting reported.
Another example is from the book Evolution: What the Fossils say and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero. He’s a geologist and in his book provides solid evidence that the Grand Canyon cannot have arisen from a single flood. The evidence is overwhelming, but it would mean typing out quite a lot to give you the evidence. The fact is most of my sources are from books that I own. Finding links on-line from other sources might require a fair bit of time, but perhaps I could look at your creation sources on-line and report back what they are not mentioning.
Last edited:
@Cycel
Nay mutations do not produce new Kinds of organisms. Furthermore Mutations are never Creative, they are Destructive.
You've just proven mutations are destructive by your own testimony. Was your friend with the mutated leg any less human than you?
Aye lower animals can switch gender and reproduce assexually indeed. And furthermore they never "Evolve" into another Kind. Lol, furthermore, we know Mankind is the highest organism in an atheist world view. Has a Man Kind ever reproduced switched gender naturally or cut off their body parts which form another Man of the same Kind?
I say this is wrong.
Life has never been proven to generate from non-life. It is impossible. It has been attempted to be forced by mankind which, even if it worked would have simply been intelligent design, but regardless of this fact the experiment by Carl Sagan ended in utter failure with the organic material that he was able to form requiring extreme conditions and the results being a highly toxic material that cannot support life.
As for the argument that because you cannot see it doesn't mean its not real lol, I find this ironic considerring your statement on Jesus' miracles.
Aye similar but not identical offspring are the hallmark of all creatures, not just the ones that produce sexually. In fact this is even true at the micro level. Notice how all though they have great genetic variety they still remain the same Kind. Mutation does not drive evolution. A human with sickle-cell anemia for instance has not evolved into a non-human.
Race is now proven to be family descent thanks to genetics. It is fair to say there is much genetic variation, but at the same time that variation is limited to whatever family descent one comes from. Furthermore it is all ready well established the current race of humans come from three families (3 pairs descended from one pair that are descended from two families possibly mixed in with the pre-flood races) The atheist/evolutionist calls these three root races Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Christian and Jewish Creationists merely call them Japhethite, Shemite (or Semite), and Hamite.
The races did not evolve, they would have possessed a wide degree of genes from their mother and father Noah and Naamah (whom were Sethite and Cainite by paternal lineage, possibly carrying genetic material from the un-named races of the pre-Flood Age.) After the flood these three sons and their progeny spread throughout earth either mixing in with eachother's race or becoming geographically or socially isolated thus retaining common observable characteristics.
Mutations again are detrimental and all organisms with mutations are still the same Kind of organism, even at the micro-level (for instance rhinovirus can mutate, but it is still rhinovirus and will never mutate into a non-rhinovirus.) Furthermore mutations can be bred out of populations even at the micro-level. Not only that but such a thing can be accomplished in a very short period of time. If the Earth, much less the human race were any older than a few thousand years humanity would be either totally or nearly uniform in all racial characteristics.
Fair enough, we shall leave magic out of this debate, though this is actually quite provable. However you must also understand the difference between Magic and Miracles before ye go attacking Creationists (understand that Christians aren't the only Creationists on this Earth.)
Now this is where I have you. You say you have seen proof of evolution. I have seen proof of evolution as well. Evolution is one Kind of organism changing into another Kind of organism. This is provable. It's called Hybrids. Problem with that is hybrids are either sterile or need their parent species to reproduce whereupon the offspring either revert back to the parent Kind or remain the same hybrid Kind. This is most often the case in plants, but can happen in animals to a lesser degree. When it does happen in animal hybrids furthermore, the hybrid suffers severe genetic mutations (typically dwarfism or giantism depending on the sex of the parent) which is severely detrimental to the well-being of the organism, and often fatal. Furthermore humanity has known about this for the few thousand years that recorded human history reveals is as long as humanity has existed.
And mind you, that is going by just observable secularism, meaning we are not accounting for the existence of The God. However when one looks at all human history The God proves Himself, but that's a whole other topic.
Nay mutations do not produce new Kinds of organisms. Furthermore Mutations are never Creative, they are Destructive.
You've just proven mutations are destructive by your own testimony. Was your friend with the mutated leg any less human than you?
Aye lower animals can switch gender and reproduce assexually indeed. And furthermore they never "Evolve" into another Kind. Lol, furthermore, we know Mankind is the highest organism in an atheist world view. Has a Man Kind ever reproduced switched gender naturally or cut off their body parts which form another Man of the same Kind?
I say this is wrong.
Life has never been proven to generate from non-life. It is impossible. It has been attempted to be forced by mankind which, even if it worked would have simply been intelligent design, but regardless of this fact the experiment by Carl Sagan ended in utter failure with the organic material that he was able to form requiring extreme conditions and the results being a highly toxic material that cannot support life.
As for the argument that because you cannot see it doesn't mean its not real lol, I find this ironic considerring your statement on Jesus' miracles.
Aye similar but not identical offspring are the hallmark of all creatures, not just the ones that produce sexually. In fact this is even true at the micro level. Notice how all though they have great genetic variety they still remain the same Kind. Mutation does not drive evolution. A human with sickle-cell anemia for instance has not evolved into a non-human.
Race is now proven to be family descent thanks to genetics. It is fair to say there is much genetic variation, but at the same time that variation is limited to whatever family descent one comes from. Furthermore it is all ready well established the current race of humans come from three families (3 pairs descended from one pair that are descended from two families possibly mixed in with the pre-flood races) The atheist/evolutionist calls these three root races Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Christian and Jewish Creationists merely call them Japhethite, Shemite (or Semite), and Hamite.
The races did not evolve, they would have possessed a wide degree of genes from their mother and father Noah and Naamah (whom were Sethite and Cainite by paternal lineage, possibly carrying genetic material from the un-named races of the pre-Flood Age.) After the flood these three sons and their progeny spread throughout earth either mixing in with eachother's race or becoming geographically or socially isolated thus retaining common observable characteristics.
Mutations again are detrimental and all organisms with mutations are still the same Kind of organism, even at the micro-level (for instance rhinovirus can mutate, but it is still rhinovirus and will never mutate into a non-rhinovirus.) Furthermore mutations can be bred out of populations even at the micro-level. Not only that but such a thing can be accomplished in a very short period of time. If the Earth, much less the human race were any older than a few thousand years humanity would be either totally or nearly uniform in all racial characteristics.
Fair enough, we shall leave magic out of this debate, though this is actually quite provable. However you must also understand the difference between Magic and Miracles before ye go attacking Creationists (understand that Christians aren't the only Creationists on this Earth.)
Now this is where I have you. You say you have seen proof of evolution. I have seen proof of evolution as well. Evolution is one Kind of organism changing into another Kind of organism. This is provable. It's called Hybrids. Problem with that is hybrids are either sterile or need their parent species to reproduce whereupon the offspring either revert back to the parent Kind or remain the same hybrid Kind. This is most often the case in plants, but can happen in animals to a lesser degree. When it does happen in animal hybrids furthermore, the hybrid suffers severe genetic mutations (typically dwarfism or giantism depending on the sex of the parent) which is severely detrimental to the well-being of the organism, and often fatal. Furthermore humanity has known about this for the few thousand years that recorded human history reveals is as long as humanity has existed.
And mind you, that is going by just observable secularism, meaning we are not accounting for the existence of The God. However when one looks at all human history The God proves Himself, but that's a whole other topic.
Last edited:
It is clear you do not understand what mutations are.
I'm sure, when you hear the word 'mutation', you think of severe deformities. These are examples of mutations, but they aren't the only types of mutations. Most mutations are subtle.
For example, an animal that eats leaves might be born with slightly longer necks than their parents. This is a mutation. If the population of animals eats all the lower leaves on trees, the animals with longer necks will be able to reach higher leaves and have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce. They pass down their mutated genes until they become more commonplace.
Mutations may or may not be destructive - it depends on the mutation.
Please watch this following video. It briefly goes over what evolution is, and more importantly, what evolution isn't. It addresses many of the incorrect claims you made in your post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0
If you're going to speak against evolution, make sure you know what evolution is and what it suggests first. For example, you have this idea that humans should be able to change genders or self replicate, and since they can't, evolution isn't real. But that's not what evolution is, nor is it what evolution suggests.
I'm sure, when you hear the word 'mutation', you think of severe deformities. These are examples of mutations, but they aren't the only types of mutations. Most mutations are subtle.
For example, an animal that eats leaves might be born with slightly longer necks than their parents. This is a mutation. If the population of animals eats all the lower leaves on trees, the animals with longer necks will be able to reach higher leaves and have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce. They pass down their mutated genes until they become more commonplace.
Mutations may or may not be destructive - it depends on the mutation.
Please watch this following video. It briefly goes over what evolution is, and more importantly, what evolution isn't. It addresses many of the incorrect claims you made in your post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0
If you're going to speak against evolution, make sure you know what evolution is and what it suggests first. For example, you have this idea that humans should be able to change genders or self replicate, and since they can't, evolution isn't real. But that's not what evolution is, nor is it what evolution suggests.
it's one thing to have a slightly longer neck, and quite another for a fish to be born with proto-legs instead of flippers and fins, another thing for a creature with a severe mutation to be sexually fertile at all, and another thing still for that mutated fish to be sexually attractive to other fish, SO MUCH so that its offspring dominates the species.
it's even yet another thing for the mutated fish that is against all odds both fertile and robust and attractive to mate with other fish and that mutation to be a dominant trait, and another thing further than that for this to all take place in an environment where stubby proto-legs are physically advantageous even while the other non-mutated fish are able to thrive.
what is observed in nature is that most mutations are somatic, not genetic, and are not inherited, that by great majority random genetic mutations are disadvantageous, that most genetic mutations are recessive traits, not dominant, that mutated offspring are more likely than not to be sterile, and that every kind of creature shuns mutated offspring instead of choosing them as mates over normal members of the species.
if evolution between species is real, it is a work of God!
it's even yet another thing for the mutated fish that is against all odds both fertile and robust and attractive to mate with other fish and that mutation to be a dominant trait, and another thing further than that for this to all take place in an environment where stubby proto-legs are physically advantageous even while the other non-mutated fish are able to thrive.
what is observed in nature is that most mutations are somatic, not genetic, and are not inherited, that by great majority random genetic mutations are disadvantageous, that most genetic mutations are recessive traits, not dominant, that mutated offspring are more likely than not to be sterile, and that every kind of creature shuns mutated offspring instead of choosing them as mates over normal members of the species.
if evolution between species is real, it is a work of God!
Cycel, respectfully, you apparently believe greatly in a power called random mutations. I have beliefs also but they are different. I believe that professing Christians have been breaking bread together and sometimes sharing a communion cup together without skipping a generation since Jesus Christ pioneered the practice on the night before He died and three days before He rose from the dead. He said: Do this in remembrance of Me. Many of us have believed and cheerfully, willingly obeyed.
I agree with you that the three races of man resemble an apparent creative result.
Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth seem like a better explanation to me than random mutations for the Asian, African and European races (Genesis 10).
Is there a proven mechanism for this? This sounds like faith in a nameless force that programs genes and coordinates the design of structured organs like eyes and the "evolution" of left and right attributes. Great engineering doesn't happen by accident. Great software is no random accident. | God bless you.
I agree with you that the three races of man resemble an apparent creative result.
Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth seem like a better explanation to me than random mutations for the Asian, African and European races (Genesis 10).
Is there a proven mechanism for this? This sounds like faith in a nameless force that programs genes and coordinates the design of structured organs like eyes and the "evolution" of left and right attributes. Great engineering doesn't happen by accident. Great software is no random accident. | God bless you.
Ahh I see the Theory of Evolution and Mutation has now changed from what I was taught in public school away from Darwinism.
In this case you will forgive me, I did not realize that neo-evolutionists have discarded Darwin's Origin of Species in favor of the Mendellian Genetic Model which is well represented in the Bible. Lol, now I see your point, it seems after seeing this video that we are arguing about agreeing lol.
One thing though I do take issue with in this video though. It seems the modern evolutionists are still trying to desperately cling to Darwin's Origin of Man, which states we descend from apes and monkeys. This I would disagree with and assert that Humanity descends from a common ancestor Human, which is Adam and Eve. As where I would argue Apes descend from a common patriarchal and matriachal Ape and likewise the monkeys from a patriarchal and matriachal Monkey.
Either way though very interesting video and I am glad to see the Evolutionists have backed away from Origin of Species and this gives me great hope that they will soon see the grievious errors of Darwin's Origin of Man.
Very good video!
In this case you will forgive me, I did not realize that neo-evolutionists have discarded Darwin's Origin of Species in favor of the Mendellian Genetic Model which is well represented in the Bible. Lol, now I see your point, it seems after seeing this video that we are arguing about agreeing lol.
One thing though I do take issue with in this video though. It seems the modern evolutionists are still trying to desperately cling to Darwin's Origin of Man, which states we descend from apes and monkeys. This I would disagree with and assert that Humanity descends from a common ancestor Human, which is Adam and Eve. As where I would argue Apes descend from a common patriarchal and matriachal Ape and likewise the monkeys from a patriarchal and matriachal Monkey.
Either way though very interesting video and I am glad to see the Evolutionists have backed away from Origin of Species and this gives me great hope that they will soon see the grievious errors of Darwin's Origin of Man.
Very good video!
Evolution is a gradual process. You didn't have a fish without proto-legs give birth to a fish with proto-legs, you had generations of fish in which each newer generation had more proto-leg like fins than the prior generation.
This statement is nonsensical because there are numerous different kinds of sever mutations.
That's not how natural selection works.
Natural selection
The rest of your paragraph seems to stem from the misconception of what a mutation is. You seem to think mutations that are passed down from generation to generation are major mutations - such as a fish with proto-legs being born from a fish without proto-legs.
Evolution is gradual. To better understand how gradual evolution is, let's look at aging. A 10 year old boy doesn't wake up as a 30 year old man. Every day, the boy slowly changes into an adult. This change is gradual, like evolution. Let's say a 10 year old boy represents a regular prehistoric fish. To suggest the fish gave birth to offspring with proto-legs would be like suggesting a 10 year old child woke up as a 30 year old man. (This is an analogy to help you visualize the gradual process in which fins become proto-legs).
The evolution of proto-legs wouldn't have happened in the same environment as the same species of fish that didn't evolve proto-legs. Evolution happens when a group from a species migrates to a different environment.
Whether most mutations are somatic, or whether only a few mutations are somatic, is irrelevant. We have a massive number of mutations that are genetic. Furthermore, most genetic mutations are not disadvantageous. The idea that mutations are generally disadvantageous stems from the false idea that mutations only refers to severe birth defects.
Every single one of us has dominant mutations. If what you said is true, we should all be sterile! But, again, your statement stems from a misunderstanding of what a genetic mutation actually is. It stems from the false idea that all mutations must be severe deformities.
Again, this stems from a misunderstanding of what a genetic mutation actually is.
This statement is nonsensical because there are numerous different kinds of sever mutations.
That's not how natural selection works.
Natural selection
The rest of your paragraph seems to stem from the misconception of what a mutation is. You seem to think mutations that are passed down from generation to generation are major mutations - such as a fish with proto-legs being born from a fish without proto-legs.
Evolution is gradual. To better understand how gradual evolution is, let's look at aging. A 10 year old boy doesn't wake up as a 30 year old man. Every day, the boy slowly changes into an adult. This change is gradual, like evolution. Let's say a 10 year old boy represents a regular prehistoric fish. To suggest the fish gave birth to offspring with proto-legs would be like suggesting a 10 year old child woke up as a 30 year old man. (This is an analogy to help you visualize the gradual process in which fins become proto-legs).
The evolution of proto-legs wouldn't have happened in the same environment as the same species of fish that didn't evolve proto-legs. Evolution happens when a group from a species migrates to a different environment.
Whether most mutations are somatic, or whether only a few mutations are somatic, is irrelevant. We have a massive number of mutations that are genetic. Furthermore, most genetic mutations are not disadvantageous. The idea that mutations are generally disadvantageous stems from the false idea that mutations only refers to severe birth defects.
Every single one of us has dominant mutations. If what you said is true, we should all be sterile! But, again, your statement stems from a misunderstanding of what a genetic mutation actually is. It stems from the false idea that all mutations must be severe deformities.
Again, this stems from a misunderstanding of what a genetic mutation actually is.
If your teacher taught you there was such a thing as Darwinism, your teacher should have been fired.
There was never a conflict between Darwin's definition of mutation and Mendel's genetic model. Darwin never suggested that all mutations are severe deformities, as you suggested. I believe you should pick up Darwin's Origin of Species and read it yourself, because I believe someone misinformed you of what Darwin wrote.
In what ways have evolutionists abandoned the Origin of Species? If you're referring to mutations, the definition of mutation you provided was never the definition proposed by Darwin. Furthermore, Darwin didn't discuss the origin of man in the Origin of Species. Perhaps you're referring to Darwin's Descent of Man?
There was never a conflict between Darwin's definition of mutation and Mendel's genetic model. Darwin never suggested that all mutations are severe deformities, as you suggested. I believe you should pick up Darwin's Origin of Species and read it yourself, because I believe someone misinformed you of what Darwin wrote.
In what ways have evolutionists abandoned the Origin of Species? If you're referring to mutations, the definition of mutation you provided was never the definition proposed by Darwin. Furthermore, Darwin didn't discuss the origin of man in the Origin of Species. Perhaps you're referring to Darwin's Descent of Man?