-
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.
P
Further showing us the average evolution adherant has extra-ordinary faith.
Again,you made that up.
Pssst,you actually believe a pair of anything can just magically form?
Lets play this out. Johnny the ape has one eyeball.(que the one socket skulls laying around everywhere).
Do you actually believe he or some comittee of evo thinggys within his ape body held a council and said "we all know this second eyebball will take another 500 trillion years ....BUT WE JUST GOT TO HAVE THIS SECOND EYEBALL!!!!!
Again,you made that up.
Pssst,you actually believe a pair of anything can just magically form?
Lets play this out. Johnny the ape has one eyeball.(que the one socket skulls laying around everywhere).
Do you actually believe he or some comittee of evo thinggys within his ape body held a council and said "we all know this second eyebball will take another 500 trillion years ....BUT WE JUST GOT TO HAVE THIS SECOND EYEBALL!!!!!
As a Historian, I cannot agree with the theory of evolution or the theory of the big bang. Because inherently both are flawed, however, they do both point, I believe towards two true statements: that things change slowly over time so that after a large period nothing is recognizable as the same and that when matter came into existence it was dense, held at extreme temperatures and suddenly expanded rapidly. Those are the basis of each theory, and that is where the research is leading. Loyalty to either theory will lead to a stagnation in science. The premises are what are advanced, not the theories themselves, until the premises are found undeniable through logic or experimentation, thus defining a law of nature (such as gravity).
P
Go back and read what I said. I never said there would be a result. You added that all by yourself.
But I hope ypu know,for evo to have a chance,there would not be that barrier.
Now if indeed you are so open to evolution,why would a result ,outside the barrier be so bizzarre?
You,in fact,need such weirdness for evo to actually work.
But I hope ypu know,for evo to have a chance,there would not be that barrier.
Now if indeed you are so open to evolution,why would a result ,outside the barrier be so bizzarre?
You,in fact,need such weirdness for evo to actually work.
Theyre just theories regarding reproduction not the actual division of the sexes.
If evolution was to occur it would require a mass 'evolving' of one species into another, otherwise they would not be able to reproduce because of the differing amount of chromosomes.
How did asexual single cell creatures evolve into other creatures and how did they become male and female?
If evolution was to occur it would require a mass 'evolving' of one species into another, otherwise they would not be able to reproduce because of the differing amount of chromosomes.
How did asexual single cell creatures evolve into other creatures and how did they become male and female?
Couple of things Popeye..
Atheism and evolution are not linked. Atheists don't necessarily believe in evolution and people who believe in evolution are not necessarily atheists.
You spend a lot of time saying why evolution is wrong... But nothing about why creationism is right. Let's focus on that part.
Atheism and evolution are not linked. Atheists don't necessarily believe in evolution and people who believe in evolution are not necessarily atheists.
You spend a lot of time saying why evolution is wrong... But nothing about why creationism is right. Let's focus on that part.
Evolution occurs, at a basic level, like this. An organism (let's say a human) mutates slightly. Let's say that mutation is a genetic mutation in the immune system that provides immunity to a certain viral infection but also causes blood cells to take up less oxygen. That mutation means that the person with it survives the virus and lives to have sex and pass on their genes. By passing on their genes, their children also have that mutation.
Their children survive the virus we spoke of and also pass on their genes. The depleted oxygen resourcing means that the child has less oxygen in the bloodstream and the body responds by expanding the lungs farther. Eventually, this mutation is passed on to a point where the organism in question has bigger lungs than other humans that don't have this particular mutation.
The human with the genetic disposition for bigger lungs becomes athletically superior to those humans with smaller lungs, and mates with humans that don't have that disposition and fathers or mothers children with larger lungs. Now these organisms have two differences from the other humans: immunity to the aforementioned virus, and superior oxygentation via larger lungs thus superior athletic ability.
They are, technically, a very slightly different organism from the ''normal'' humans, who can still mate with the ''normal humans''. But a problem arises, the increased oxygenation leads to hyperoxygenated cells,thus the body has to adapt for the oxygen increase by growing bigger muscles to use up all that oxygen, thus these humans now have superior muscle mass, superior lungs, and immunity to a virus compared to the ''normal humans''. As you can see, the organisms are getting increasingly different, step by step, generation through generation, to the ''normal humans'', but their reproductive process is no different.
Eventually, their reproductive process may begin to change, small steps at a time. By the time that change comes around(if it ever does) there will be generations upon generations of these ''superior humans'' around to be able to mate together.
Apply this kind of slow-progressive logic to every evolutionary process you can think of. It doesn't happen overnight, and if an organism mutated to a point where it COULDN'T reproduce with the other humans, then it would simply die off and would not have had the chance to further that mutation by reproduction, since it can't reproduce. So, in summation, the mutation only gets passed to the next generation if procreation happens.
As for how creatures first evolved the ability for procreation, it evolved as a means for simple eukaryotes to avoid deleterious mutations, pathogens, and to increase the rate of adaptation. So, in otherwords, simple celled asexually reproductive organisms would be threatened by viruses, for instance. The rorganisms would have responded mutationally by the development of sexual characteristics. Think of a virus. It attacks the host, and the host builds immune defences, but because the host reproduces asexually its ''offspring'' have gained no NEW defenses against the virus, so eventually the virus wins out over the host. By splitting into separate ''sexes'', the organism can increase its chances of mutating new defences against the virus, because when the two sexes procreate together they mix their varying genetic material in ways that asexually reproductive organisms can't. They increase their gene pool, taking on mutations from each other rather than relying on an asexual lineage with limited mutational capability.
In fact, the best defence in response to viruses would be polysexual reproduction, or reproduction from three, or four, or five or six parents -- the more parents the better to fight the viruses and pathogens.
Their children survive the virus we spoke of and also pass on their genes. The depleted oxygen resourcing means that the child has less oxygen in the bloodstream and the body responds by expanding the lungs farther. Eventually, this mutation is passed on to a point where the organism in question has bigger lungs than other humans that don't have this particular mutation.
The human with the genetic disposition for bigger lungs becomes athletically superior to those humans with smaller lungs, and mates with humans that don't have that disposition and fathers or mothers children with larger lungs. Now these organisms have two differences from the other humans: immunity to the aforementioned virus, and superior oxygentation via larger lungs thus superior athletic ability.
They are, technically, a very slightly different organism from the ''normal'' humans, who can still mate with the ''normal humans''. But a problem arises, the increased oxygenation leads to hyperoxygenated cells,thus the body has to adapt for the oxygen increase by growing bigger muscles to use up all that oxygen, thus these humans now have superior muscle mass, superior lungs, and immunity to a virus compared to the ''normal humans''. As you can see, the organisms are getting increasingly different, step by step, generation through generation, to the ''normal humans'', but their reproductive process is no different.
Eventually, their reproductive process may begin to change, small steps at a time. By the time that change comes around(if it ever does) there will be generations upon generations of these ''superior humans'' around to be able to mate together.
Apply this kind of slow-progressive logic to every evolutionary process you can think of. It doesn't happen overnight, and if an organism mutated to a point where it COULDN'T reproduce with the other humans, then it would simply die off and would not have had the chance to further that mutation by reproduction, since it can't reproduce. So, in summation, the mutation only gets passed to the next generation if procreation happens.
As for how creatures first evolved the ability for procreation, it evolved as a means for simple eukaryotes to avoid deleterious mutations, pathogens, and to increase the rate of adaptation. So, in otherwords, simple celled asexually reproductive organisms would be threatened by viruses, for instance. The rorganisms would have responded mutationally by the development of sexual characteristics. Think of a virus. It attacks the host, and the host builds immune defences, but because the host reproduces asexually its ''offspring'' have gained no NEW defenses against the virus, so eventually the virus wins out over the host. By splitting into separate ''sexes'', the organism can increase its chances of mutating new defences against the virus, because when the two sexes procreate together they mix their varying genetic material in ways that asexually reproductive organisms can't. They increase their gene pool, taking on mutations from each other rather than relying on an asexual lineage with limited mutational capability.
In fact, the best defence in response to viruses would be polysexual reproduction, or reproduction from three, or four, or five or six parents -- the more parents the better to fight the viruses and pathogens.
It is virii that reproduce asexually and it is mutation within an individual virus cell (whether by DNA/RNA fault or tolerance to medicines) that make it difficult for a host to defeat until another medicine appears and is available. The medicine shows that there is a 3rd party interference in the event.
The virus doesnt change, must like athletes who take steroids which may come from animals. They may have mutations in their cells but the amount of chromosomes does not change. As for reproduction....they will most likely end up sterile from their injections of steroids and foreign proteins.
In regards to breed/race mixing, do regard this as evolution?
And for what reasons do you consider this to be evolution even though there is no change in the amount of chromosomes?
What time period are we talking about in all of this?
Has evolution ever been observed?
The virus doesnt change, must like athletes who take steroids which may come from animals. They may have mutations in their cells but the amount of chromosomes does not change. As for reproduction....they will most likely end up sterile from their injections of steroids and foreign proteins.
In regards to breed/race mixing, do regard this as evolution?
And for what reasons do you consider this to be evolution even though there is no change in the amount of chromosomes?
What time period are we talking about in all of this?
Has evolution ever been observed?
This is a contradiction.
Muscle building by steroids isn't the same as genetic mutation.
Your point?
Not in and of itself. It can certainly be a factor in evolution.
I don't, in and of itself.
In what, specifically?
Yes. In humans in various ways, anaemia resistence in sub Saharan Africa, for instance. In viruses over various generations, in bacteria in response to antibiotic medications and indirectly in the fossil record, among I'm sure a plethora of other instances.
Muscle building by steroids isn't the same as genetic mutation.
Your point?
Not in and of itself. It can certainly be a factor in evolution.
I don't, in and of itself.
In what, specifically?
Yes. In humans in various ways, anaemia resistence in sub Saharan Africa, for instance. In viruses over various generations, in bacteria in response to antibiotic medications and indirectly in the fossil record, among I'm sure a plethora of other instances.
A mutated cell that can reproduce within a general virii strain does not immediately have an change on the overall character of a virus. It might do depending on climate and circumstance.
People get HIV, they get sick and die. At best they can expand their projected lifespan by 10 years or so.
Despite the mutations occurring within their immune system and the like, the amount of chromosomes within them does not change. Neither do they turn into other species.
If its within ones genetic DNA structure to be skinny then the addition of steroids alters that structure and more than a few people end up sterile from abusing steroids.
Self explanatory
If it can be, then how so?
Oh anything that has been observed and recorded by mankind
Adaptation is not evolution.
If the amount of chromosomes doesnt change, then it has not become a new species
HIV is still HIV, a germ is still a germ
Just a record where things died, doesnt prove a continuous linkage
Name them
People get HIV, they get sick and die. At best they can expand their projected lifespan by 10 years or so.
Despite the mutations occurring within their immune system and the like, the amount of chromosomes within them does not change. Neither do they turn into other species.
If its within ones genetic DNA structure to be skinny then the addition of steroids alters that structure and more than a few people end up sterile from abusing steroids.
Self explanatory
If it can be, then how so?
Oh anything that has been observed and recorded by mankind
Adaptation is not evolution.
If the amount of chromosomes doesnt change, then it has not become a new species
HIV is still HIV, a germ is still a germ
Just a record where things died, doesnt prove a continuous linkage
Name them
That particular mutated virus cell has different characteristics than an unmutated one. It is fundamentally different, albeit in a small way. That virus (mutated) then reproduces, and these mutations are cumulative in the lineage. That's how we get different strains of the same virus. That's how new strains come to be.
That's because mutations are small scale. Nobody's saying evolution states that people mutate and change into different species overnight, except maybe you. No reputable scientist thinks evolution happens on a physically discernable scale overnight. Mutations can and do though. Mutations are only one facet of evolutionary process.
It alters the physical structure of their muscles, but even exercise can do that. That's not a representation of genetic mutation.
Humour me.
Breeding diversifies the genes. When a mother and father procreate their genes are mixed. Hitherto uncombined genetics combine to create new combinations of genetic material. This can lead to unique mutations or antibody systems and various other things.
It depends on the organism. Viruses .. it can be weeks, months, years. Bigger organisms usually take longer.
Adaptation in this regard -- the genetic mutation of a certain characteristic that is selected for -- is exactly what evolution is, but nobody other than creationists seem to call it ''adaptation''. It's ''selected for mutation''. It's ''small scale'' evolution if you like, but again, mutations are cumulative in lineages. Given time, this is the EXACT process by which speciation (substantial diversification within a lineage) occurs.
HIV is HIV up until the point where it has mutated cumulatively enough times that is is sufficiently characteristically different from the ''normal'' HIV to be considered something else. With HIV, it hasn't gotten to that stage yet -- it's a relatively new virus.
Right, but it does prove that new species came to be at a certain point in time, and they hitherto didn't exist. For example, if at 1000 feet I find fish that have normal jawbones, and find NO fish with retracted jawbones, yet at 500 feet (further up the strata, thus in more modern times) I find a fsh with retracted jawbones and fish without retracted jawbones, I can conclude that the fish with retracted jawbones came to be after the fish without retracted jawbones. Thus, they did not always exist, but existed at some point AFTER the fish without retracted jaw bones. If not by evolution, then how did they come to exist AFTER the fish without retracted jaw bones?
Did aliens plant them in the strata?
Name them[/QUOTE]
Anolis lizards, Faroe Island housemice, chihlid fish, larus seagulls, evening primrose, chlorella, mosquitos, finches, old world monkeys, fruit flies, zebrafish, to name a few.
That's because mutations are small scale. Nobody's saying evolution states that people mutate and change into different species overnight, except maybe you. No reputable scientist thinks evolution happens on a physically discernable scale overnight. Mutations can and do though. Mutations are only one facet of evolutionary process.
It alters the physical structure of their muscles, but even exercise can do that. That's not a representation of genetic mutation.
Humour me.
Breeding diversifies the genes. When a mother and father procreate their genes are mixed. Hitherto uncombined genetics combine to create new combinations of genetic material. This can lead to unique mutations or antibody systems and various other things.
It depends on the organism. Viruses .. it can be weeks, months, years. Bigger organisms usually take longer.
Adaptation in this regard -- the genetic mutation of a certain characteristic that is selected for -- is exactly what evolution is, but nobody other than creationists seem to call it ''adaptation''. It's ''selected for mutation''. It's ''small scale'' evolution if you like, but again, mutations are cumulative in lineages. Given time, this is the EXACT process by which speciation (substantial diversification within a lineage) occurs.
HIV is HIV up until the point where it has mutated cumulatively enough times that is is sufficiently characteristically different from the ''normal'' HIV to be considered something else. With HIV, it hasn't gotten to that stage yet -- it's a relatively new virus.
Right, but it does prove that new species came to be at a certain point in time, and they hitherto didn't exist. For example, if at 1000 feet I find fish that have normal jawbones, and find NO fish with retracted jawbones, yet at 500 feet (further up the strata, thus in more modern times) I find a fsh with retracted jawbones and fish without retracted jawbones, I can conclude that the fish with retracted jawbones came to be after the fish without retracted jawbones. Thus, they did not always exist, but existed at some point AFTER the fish without retracted jaw bones. If not by evolution, then how did they come to exist AFTER the fish without retracted jaw bones?
Did aliens plant them in the strata?
Name them[/QUOTE]
Anolis lizards, Faroe Island housemice, chihlid fish, larus seagulls, evening primrose, chlorella, mosquitos, finches, old world monkeys, fruit flies, zebrafish, to name a few.
And yet the virus remains a virus
What are the other facets of the 'evolutionary' process?
No one says that anything has changed into a different species - because it hasnt
If they retain or lose fat and water etc. that they wouldnt have if they didnt take steroids and this becomes permanent does this not mean that the body has become restructured?
Growth hormones would be an obvious example.
Ok...how about a typical atheist answer?....."I dont know"
Doesnt alter the amount of chromosomes, nor does it indicate that it would ever happen
Care to name any specific ones?
Care to show where this 'speciation' has occurred and the recorded proof of it?
With the infection and transmission of heaps of people, HIV has shown itself to replicate itself by injecting its RNA into cells of the host and 'hijacking' those cells which then proceed to do the same thing. It is spreading its RNA, it is not adopting any RNA from the cells it attacks.
Youre offering a fanciful opinion - not a verifiable fact
Why not? You think its possible for life to be on other planets
Mice are mice, fish are fish etc.
What are the other facets of the 'evolutionary' process?
No one says that anything has changed into a different species - because it hasnt
If they retain or lose fat and water etc. that they wouldnt have if they didnt take steroids and this becomes permanent does this not mean that the body has become restructured?
Growth hormones would be an obvious example.
Ok...how about a typical atheist answer?....."I dont know"
Doesnt alter the amount of chromosomes, nor does it indicate that it would ever happen
Care to name any specific ones?
Care to show where this 'speciation' has occurred and the recorded proof of it?
With the infection and transmission of heaps of people, HIV has shown itself to replicate itself by injecting its RNA into cells of the host and 'hijacking' those cells which then proceed to do the same thing. It is spreading its RNA, it is not adopting any RNA from the cells it attacks.
Youre offering a fanciful opinion - not a verifiable fact
Why not? You think its possible for life to be on other planets
Mice are mice, fish are fish etc.