Christian sarcasm is disgusting. Making little jokes like used car salesmen between each other after some fool has driven off with a pack of junk and lies is terrible. Why would someone joke about something so serious.."lol aren't you glad your toes don't have eyelids" Seriously..Get a new fucking job preacher man!
Just like the creationists, use the term evolutionist, and put words into peoples mouths that they did not say, so does the Micro Macro argument go. To biologists (which are those that actually understand evolution), macro evolution is evolution above the species level. I do know creationists choose an unrealistic definition of macro evolution, but under this understanding there are no Christians either, because my definition of Christian is someone with 3 horns.
You haven't exposed anything. you made a claim about macro evolution, then provided nothing. Saying that you are correct does not mean that you are correct. And stop with the equivocation foolishness. If anything creationists are guilty of this by their continuous redefinition of scientific terms such as macro evolution, theory, etc. They modify things to fit their view, and this is why creationists are so unreliable.
Macro evolution as defined by biologists has been observed in th lab and in nature. There are many cases, and if you choose to actually research it then fine. If you continue to use the ridiculous definition used by creationists, then talk with creationists about it, not scientists.
And fair enough. You are correct that you cannot prove that the evidence does not exist.
Where did you see me say I was a biologist. And stop with the equivocation bull. Do you actually know anything about evolution, or is that your only answer to any question. New word for you is it. Got to use it as many times as possible in a week, and you win a lollypop.
Macro-evolution has no meaning outside creation/intelligent design circles. Biologists and biology do not recognize the term, therefore no definition. It's either evolution or it isn't.
When conversing with anti-evolutionists, don't use the term. It only serves to legitimize a unscientific methodology.
Evolution took billions of years and is still happening today. Look at dogs, they've evolved quite a bit in the last 50 years. Bacteria is constantly evolving. Why do you think there are so many different kinds of cold sicknesses? or why penicilan doesn't work anymore? Or why people have immunities? It's because bacteria evolve to become resistant to overused medicines. and white blood cells evolve to become resistant to bacteria.
but why not look at the most basic cell. Bearing in mind that the one we hypothesize to be the first cell existed 4 billion years ago and has evolved, so it would be very very simple.
We can literally see the evolution of some cells... eg.g. E.Coli's resistance to bacteira
and noone has ever EVER suggested the complex cell just spontaneously arranged itself, but we do say perhaps a very basic cell did, and evolution did the rest
@jazzyhap sorry noone can provide direct evidence as we wasnt there. But we do know some things which give suppport to the theory. We knwo lipids (membranes) arrange themselves into spheres in water, we know things can get stuck within them. We know RNA moleculs arrange themselves in chains in water, and are in abundance in nature. We know RNA can self performt he job of a poor protein (so self replicate)
so in theory it is plausable that a basic cell arranged itself to self replicate
This guy is nuts. All he is doing is spouting off facts that no one has yet to refute other than to say he doesn't know anything. We know the the truth this guy doesn't know anyting. Sad.
This Carl Baugh guy truly has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't understand anything about this silly probability idea, and how he isn't even using it correctly. Sad
Not AH. Stating a fact. Baugh does not know what he is spouting, and I guess it is one of two things. he is either a liar, or a idiot. Perhaps a liar.
Throwing numbers at people is a cheesy tactic, any specific outcome has a tiny probability.
and for the complexity of multicellular life try checking out some of the many great videos on the theory of evolution. It wont take long there are plenty of them here on youtube and they are quite entertaining.
Well lets "assume" that you are intelligent enough to not play the equivocation game, and confuse a scientific fact, micro evolution, with a hypothesis, macro evolution.
There is no empirical evidence for macro evolution, and as a number of my videos point out, it is quite a silly hypothesis. You have to have faith to believe it, so I bumped it to religion status, because it is not based on evidence but upon hypothesis upon hypothesis upon hypothesis.
Sorry to disappoint, but speciation has been observed. You can choose to ignore it all you want but that does not change the fact. And micro and macro labels are only given by creationist arguments. And that is basically creationists trying desperately to hold on to some sort of dignity. But failing, because they willfully ignore the facts.
Ahhh speciation, equivocation #2. So you got fruit flies that are nor reproducing together, but are still fruit flies. Do you really think that is what we are talking about in "Macro" evolution. No, that is Micro evolution. Hey its a fruit fly, and still a fruit fly.
Again, another fallacy argument. That is twice you have tried to pass off micro evolution as macro evolution, and again, you are caught red handed.
but there has been observed populations of species that have been split apart, and it got to a paoint where they could not reproduce with each other. This is aspeciation, and a cornerstone of evolution.
Its hard to find lots of directly observable evidence because evolution takes a very long time in complex animals to show drastic changes.
But look at types dogs, cant you imagine that over time they will become so differenct it will get to a point where they cannot breed?
@jazzyhap But the evidence is so strong it is safe to call it a fact. Just like the evidence the earth is going around the sun is a fact. We cannot see it with our won eyes. Our eyes tell us that the sun goes round the earth... but we know based on evidence from various sources thart actually we go around it. This is like evolution.
I honestly think (no offence) that people who reject it, dont understand it.
This is made clear when people say 'chimps giving birth to humans'!?!?!? madness
No, the evidence is not strong at all. The earth goes around the sun in 1 year. You are talking about changes of species, something we have never observed, over a huge amount of time, which we have not observed, and is impossible because of such phenomenon like leap second for example. It doesn't work.
If you look up a macro evolutionary biased study on earths rotation, you would find a number around earth gaining 1 second every 200 years.
But if you google leap second, you would learn that the empirical evidence shows us gaining 1 second every 18 months, AND we act on this factual evidence.
Same for population, growing at 1.14% today. If you dropped it to 0.1% and went back only 100,000 years with only 1 man and 1 woman, you will have today's human population being 5.83x10^43.
Evolution says nothing about the earths rotation? I dont understand the relevance...
Why do you assume population has increassed at the same rate throughout time? Obviouslu industrialisation, medicine, nutrition, etc.. will change the way populations gorw.
I dont know if those men are simply lying to the audience, or simply dont know what they are talking about..
the most basic understandign of biology would tell you populations dont grow in the way they describe.
Macro evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis based on a hypothesis based on a hypothesis, and uses equivocation[micro] to try to pass it off as a fact.
@jazzyhap biologists dont see a difference between 'micro' and 'macro' because they are the same thing. You wont find this term in any science book, or from a professor. This whole concept was invented by creationists who needed to answer some basic facts that for example, bacteria evolves very quickly, domestication of cows, dogs etc..
Its such simple logic that a small change in a small amount of tim, means over a big amount of time, a big change will occur.
Rather than trying to say youve never seen it therefor it cannot be, put this tactic to your own view on reality...
Ever seen a god? NO
Ever seen magic? NO
Ever seen a god create something out of nothing ? NO
Ever seen someone rise from the grave? NO
so before you denounce evolution which is backed by the majority of scientists remember the stories you believe were written by people that believed in unicorns, giants, sea monsters, ect.
we dont depend on stories told by others for these, dipshit. we know those are parts of our brain and using imaging can show of our brain working as these occur.
and everything religious can be replicated by hypnosis, drugs and emotion....
Too bad you have your head shoved so far up your ass you refuse to learn anything about evolution b4 dismissing it.
It doesnt matter what anyone says you will never listen, just as most others like you. maybe one day our species will move beyond your kind
@jazzyhap There is lots of emperical evidence, loads... DNA evidence, fossils, that kind of thing.
The thing you ask for is impossible in such a small amount of time. We have only know about evolution fro aounr 100 years, and this is absolutely infitesimally small in regrards to the geological time required for drastic changes.
We have observed some big change in animals we have domesticated though, such as cows. your average farm cow wouldnt survive 2 minutes in the real wild.
Well I think its hard for someone who rejects evolution to account for the changes observed in animals humans have kept for eating, pets etc. The huge changes in dog morphology is quite strking, and very obvious.
Nature only had oen type of dog (wolf) and humans have bred them in such wasys we all sorts of shapes and siezes, like little poodles and huge dalmations.
This is due to genetic changes, and artificial selection by humans. We have sped up evolution foru our own needs
@jazzyhap yeah but dont you think that over time the small changes would keep happening, and than over time the tiny changes (hardly noticable from generation to generation) will become big change... i mean if i than looked at the organims, and compared it to 3000 generations ago there might be a massive difference in the appearancve of the animal.
This would explaiun why all mammals share basic body plans. Same bones, same biochemistry, mostly the same protein, but differen shapes
Or we could share so much because we came from the same creator.
Not only is the time line for these changes unreasonable, but small changes will result in large changes within the same species. It would take a freak mutation to make the "outside the species" jump, and that doesn't take "time". Where is that happening? It isn't.
@jazzyhap why would this creator put what appears to be leg bones in whale fins, or bat wings?
Why would he give us an appendix that does nothing except occasioanlyl kill us. Why would he give us such bad knees and backs, for walking (good for crawling) that we get pain in later life. Why would he make 95% of our DNA completely useless, and lots of it fit precisely witht he genomes of viruses... why would he make viruses that only function is to hamr mammals?
Have you left science and are asking why would God make an imperfect creation? He didn't. Sin brought on death and disease.
And a longer leg would stay in the same species, and thus, you would not be jumping to a different species.
Example. If you pass down the numbers 2,4,7, they could get rearranged every which way, 4,7,2; 7,4,2, etc. But you are not going to have a 6 [new species] unless it gets introduced somehow, and that takes a mutation.
@jazzyhap Why are our eyes back to front, and therefore have a blind spot? Why do people get all the gentic dieseases like cystic fibrosis? Why is the tier so good at catching antelope, and the antelope so good at running away from tigers? does god enjoy the spectator sport? Why do animals suffer extremem pain when ebing eaten,.
Its because nature did not design us. We are the accumlation of millions of years of trial and error.
@jazzyhap yes but a 'freak' mutation might mean a longer leg, or slightly more fur.... This would mean an advatage for the organism, and better survival. His long leg genes would pass down to his children, who would out run the older animals, which would shy away into extinction, or could still survive if they were lucky.
just a basic example, but it gives basic idea of what evolution is about
Christian sarcasm is disgusting. Making little jokes like used car salesmen between each other after some fool has driven off with a pack of junk and lies is terrible. Why would someone joke about something so serious.."lol aren't you glad your toes don't have eyelids" Seriously..Get a new fucking job preacher man!
AxeVEVO 2 months ago
My only question... Why the non rating format. That tells as a story, doesn't it?
quarkkkkk 4 months ago
i have no idea what micro eggs things r but GOD SAVES :) go harry . one more thing U DIRTY RADGE HAHA k ttyl god bless
roselogan1 10 months ago
It is because of the thinking of atheists, and the lack of value of 'life', that people like Jared Lee Laughner can go on such murder rampages.
jazzyhap 1 year ago
Just like the creationists, use the term evolutionist, and put words into peoples mouths that they did not say, so does the Micro Macro argument go. To biologists (which are those that actually understand evolution), macro evolution is evolution above the species level. I do know creationists choose an unrealistic definition of macro evolution, but under this understanding there are no Christians either, because my definition of Christian is someone with 3 horns.
quedorf 2 years ago
@quedorf
Just like manipulators who want to use equivocation to prove a point after repeatedly being exposed over and over.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
You haven't exposed anything. you made a claim about macro evolution, then provided nothing. Saying that you are correct does not mean that you are correct. And stop with the equivocation foolishness. If anything creationists are guilty of this by their continuous redefinition of scientific terms such as macro evolution, theory, etc. They modify things to fit their view, and this is why creationists are so unreliable.
quedorf 2 years ago
@quedorf
There is no evidence for macro evolution. It is not my burden of proof.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Macro evolution as defined by biologists has been observed in th lab and in nature. There are many cases, and if you choose to actually research it then fine. If you continue to use the ridiculous definition used by creationists, then talk with creationists about it, not scientists.
And fair enough. You are correct that you cannot prove that the evidence does not exist.
quedorf 2 years ago
@quedorf
I am not a biologist. I have made it very clear so you can not play your equivocation game.
And you are a biologist who asks people to prove a negative? lol.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Where did you see me say I was a biologist. And stop with the equivocation bull. Do you actually know anything about evolution, or is that your only answer to any question. New word for you is it. Got to use it as many times as possible in a week, and you win a lollypop.
quedorf 2 years ago
Macro-evolution has no meaning outside creation/intelligent design circles. Biologists and biology do not recognize the term, therefore no definition. It's either evolution or it isn't.
When conversing with anti-evolutionists, don't use the term. It only serves to legitimize a unscientific methodology.
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
Evolution took billions of years and is still happening today. Look at dogs, they've evolved quite a bit in the last 50 years. Bacteria is constantly evolving. Why do you think there are so many different kinds of cold sicknesses? or why penicilan doesn't work anymore? Or why people have immunities? It's because bacteria evolve to become resistant to overused medicines. and white blood cells evolve to become resistant to bacteria.
TheJonmarshall 2 years ago
@TheJonmarshall
nice equivocation.
Now try explaining macro evolution without creating a fallacy.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Macro evolution is officially debunked!!!
janwayne2009 2 years ago
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
wILLiamking777 2 years ago
yawn.
ad hominem
ad hominem
and why waste our time on evolution when we already know the silliness of macro evolution.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Hello
yes cells are massively complex (well human ones)
but why not look at the most basic cell. Bearing in mind that the one we hypothesize to be the first cell existed 4 billion years ago and has evolved, so it would be very very simple.
We can literally see the evolution of some cells... eg.g. E.Coli's resistance to bacteira
and noone has ever EVER suggested the complex cell just spontaneously arranged itself, but we do say perhaps a very basic cell did, and evolution did the rest
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
can you provide evidence for the cell existing 4 billion years ago?
or is that just a convenient hypothesis for you?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap sorry noone can provide direct evidence as we wasnt there. But we do know some things which give suppport to the theory. We knwo lipids (membranes) arrange themselves into spheres in water, we know things can get stuck within them. We know RNA moleculs arrange themselves in chains in water, and are in abundance in nature. We know RNA can self performt he job of a poor protein (so self replicate)
so in theory it is plausable that a basic cell arranged itself to self replicate
markgg1 2 years ago
This guy is nuts. All he is doing is spouting off facts that no one has yet to refute other than to say he doesn't know anything. We know the the truth this guy doesn't know anyting. Sad.
evolutionarytheory01 2 years ago
@evolutionarytheory01
ad hominem
jazzyhap 2 years ago
This Carl Baugh guy truly has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't understand anything about this silly probability idea, and how he isn't even using it correctly. Sad
quedorf 2 years ago
@quedorf
ad hominem
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Not AH. Stating a fact. Baugh does not know what he is spouting, and I guess it is one of two things. he is either a liar, or a idiot. Perhaps a liar.
quedorf 2 years ago
@quedorf
Actually, your whole argument is "he is a liar or an idiot", which has nothing to do with the evidence presented, but a personal attack.
Ad hominem.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
No. i am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a idiot. I am saying he is a idiot because he made such a argument.
His argument is basically what is the chance of everything happening again as it did.
quedorf 2 years ago
Throwing numbers at people is a cheesy tactic, any specific outcome has a tiny probability.
and for the complexity of multicellular life try checking out some of the many great videos on the theory of evolution. It wont take long there are plenty of them here on youtube and they are quite entertaining.
gpitts9261 2 years ago
@gpitts9261
Why check out a debunked religion?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
rofl! you mean christianity right? cause ive seen nothing close to debunking for evolution.
only a total moron would make a claim that dumb.
gpitts9261 2 years ago
@gpitts9261
Well lets "assume" that you are intelligent enough to not play the equivocation game, and confuse a scientific fact, micro evolution, with a hypothesis, macro evolution.
There is no empirical evidence for macro evolution, and as a number of my videos point out, it is quite a silly hypothesis. You have to have faith to believe it, so I bumped it to religion status, because it is not based on evidence but upon hypothesis upon hypothesis upon hypothesis.
But nice ad hominem.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Sorry to disappoint, but speciation has been observed. You can choose to ignore it all you want but that does not change the fact. And micro and macro labels are only given by creationist arguments. And that is basically creationists trying desperately to hold on to some sort of dignity. But failing, because they willfully ignore the facts.
quedorf 2 years ago
@quedorf
Ahhh speciation, equivocation #2. So you got fruit flies that are nor reproducing together, but are still fruit flies. Do you really think that is what we are talking about in "Macro" evolution. No, that is Micro evolution. Hey its a fruit fly, and still a fruit fly.
Again, another fallacy argument. That is twice you have tried to pass off micro evolution as macro evolution, and again, you are caught red handed.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap Hello
but there has been observed populations of species that have been split apart, and it got to a paoint where they could not reproduce with each other. This is aspeciation, and a cornerstone of evolution.
Its hard to find lots of directly observable evidence because evolution takes a very long time in complex animals to show drastic changes.
But look at types dogs, cant you imagine that over time they will become so differenct it will get to a point where they cannot breed?
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
All in hypothesis "because" we have not been around the "long time".
I understand the hypothesis on macro evolution, I just do not like it passed around as a fact.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap But the evidence is so strong it is safe to call it a fact. Just like the evidence the earth is going around the sun is a fact. We cannot see it with our won eyes. Our eyes tell us that the sun goes round the earth... but we know based on evidence from various sources thart actually we go around it. This is like evolution.
I honestly think (no offence) that people who reject it, dont understand it.
This is made clear when people say 'chimps giving birth to humans'!?!?!? madness
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
No, the evidence is not strong at all. The earth goes around the sun in 1 year. You are talking about changes of species, something we have never observed, over a huge amount of time, which we have not observed, and is impossible because of such phenomenon like leap second for example. It doesn't work.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@markgg1
If you look up a macro evolutionary biased study on earths rotation, you would find a number around earth gaining 1 second every 200 years.
But if you google leap second, you would learn that the empirical evidence shows us gaining 1 second every 18 months, AND we act on this factual evidence.
Same for population, growing at 1.14% today. If you dropped it to 0.1% and went back only 100,000 years with only 1 man and 1 woman, you will have today's human population being 5.83x10^43.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap
Evolution says nothing about the earths rotation? I dont understand the relevance...
Why do you assume population has increassed at the same rate throughout time? Obviouslu industrialisation, medicine, nutrition, etc.. will change the way populations gorw.
I dont know if those men are simply lying to the audience, or simply dont know what they are talking about..
the most basic understandign of biology would tell you populations dont grow in the way they describe.
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
You don't understand the relevance?
Wiki says dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago.
If we lose 1 second every 200 years you lose 325 thousand seconds.
But empirical evidence [Leap Second] shows we lose 1 second every 18 months, or 1.5 years. That would lose 43,333,333 seconds. Do the math.
The macro evolution time line is impossible relating to empirical evidence we have. I don't know why people push this garbage.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap 43'000'000 seconds is not very much time im afraid. This could be true, as apparently our body clocks work on a 23 hour clock.
I still dont see how this is relevant to evolution.
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, leap second shows we gain 1 second/per year every 18 months. We set our clocks to its happening.
So when you lose 43,000,000 seconds, that is in the space of 1 year.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap hello
The speed of rot\tion of the earth changes year to year.
are you using this as evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old according to the what thr bible says
if you are... than the conversation is over.
Ridiculous... I dont know why I waste my time with these lunatics.
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
LOL
Facts are facts.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@markgg1
Or again, 65 million years ago, the year was 43,000,000 seconds shorter than they are today.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@markgg1
65 million years ago, the year would be 43,000,000 seconds shorter than the year 2009.
Do you still not see the relevance to the macro evolution time line?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@markgg1
Here is a hint.
There is only 31,536,000 seconds in one year. So 65 million years ago, the earth would be spinning backwards.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap spinning backwards!
now ive heard it all
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
An ad hominem.
Wow, I actually thought for a while you was going to be a real debate, actually presenting evidence.
Thanks for reducing yourself to the average anti-god remarks.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
u didnt answer the question.
Are you suggesting that the universe is 6000 years old based on a severely flawed argument that the earths spin has decreased over time.
assuming (lots of assummptions) that the earths rate of spin has declinded in the exact same linear way you describe.
So by your logic, are you suggesting that in a few million years the earth will stop going around the sun?
I just find it hard to keep rational when people tell me the world is 6000 years old, based on the bible
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1 A shame the Bible doesn't say Earth's age.
pwuint12 10 months ago
@markgg1
Macro evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis based on a hypothesis based on a hypothesis, and uses equivocation[micro] to try to pass it off as a fact.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap biologists dont see a difference between 'micro' and 'macro' because they are the same thing. You wont find this term in any science book, or from a professor. This whole concept was invented by creationists who needed to answer some basic facts that for example, bacteria evolves very quickly, domestication of cows, dogs etc..
Its such simple logic that a small change in a small amount of tim, means over a big amount of time, a big change will occur.
markgg1 2 years ago
Rather than trying to say youve never seen it therefor it cannot be, put this tactic to your own view on reality...
Ever seen a god? NO
Ever seen magic? NO
Ever seen a god create something out of nothing ? NO
Ever seen someone rise from the grave? NO
so before you denounce evolution which is backed by the majority of scientists remember the stories you believe were written by people that believed in unicorns, giants, sea monsters, ect.
gpitts9261 2 years ago
@gpitts9261
Ever seen a thought? NO
Ever seen imagination? NO
Ever seen an emotion? NO
Ever seen a conscience? NO
so I guess not seeing these things mean they do not exist. So don't believe in them HYPOCRITE!!!
jazzyhap 2 years ago
we dont depend on stories told by others for these, dipshit. we know those are parts of our brain and using imaging can show of our brain working as these occur.
and everything religious can be replicated by hypnosis, drugs and emotion....
Too bad you have your head shoved so far up your ass you refuse to learn anything about evolution b4 dismissing it.
It doesnt matter what anyone says you will never listen, just as most others like you. maybe one day our species will move beyond your kind
gpitts9261 2 years ago
@gpitts9261
You have never given evidence for thought.
Glad you like to duck the conversation though...
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap There is lots of emperical evidence, loads... DNA evidence, fossils, that kind of thing.
The thing you ask for is impossible in such a small amount of time. We have only know about evolution fro aounr 100 years, and this is absolutely infitesimally small in regrards to the geological time required for drastic changes.
We have observed some big change in animals we have domesticated though, such as cows. your average farm cow wouldnt survive 2 minutes in the real wild.
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
DNA is empirical evidence for DNA, etc.
It is pure hypothesis to conclude that dinosaurs became birds, etc.
Domesticated, lol, your average human couldn't survive in the real wild for 2 minutes.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap
Well I think its hard for someone who rejects evolution to account for the changes observed in animals humans have kept for eating, pets etc. The huge changes in dog morphology is quite strking, and very obvious.
Nature only had oen type of dog (wolf) and humans have bred them in such wasys we all sorts of shapes and siezes, like little poodles and huge dalmations.
This is due to genetic changes, and artificial selection by humans. We have sped up evolution foru our own needs
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
Rejects "macro" evolution.
Of course, that just means small changes within a species.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap yeah but dont you think that over time the small changes would keep happening, and than over time the tiny changes (hardly noticable from generation to generation) will become big change... i mean if i than looked at the organims, and compared it to 3000 generations ago there might be a massive difference in the appearancve of the animal.
This would explaiun why all mammals share basic body plans. Same bones, same biochemistry, mostly the same protein, but differen shapes
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
Or we could share so much because we came from the same creator.
Not only is the time line for these changes unreasonable, but small changes will result in large changes within the same species. It would take a freak mutation to make the "outside the species" jump, and that doesn't take "time". Where is that happening? It isn't.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap why would this creator put what appears to be leg bones in whale fins, or bat wings?
Why would he give us an appendix that does nothing except occasioanlyl kill us. Why would he give us such bad knees and backs, for walking (good for crawling) that we get pain in later life. Why would he make 95% of our DNA completely useless, and lots of it fit precisely witht he genomes of viruses... why would he make viruses that only function is to hamr mammals?
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
Have you left science and are asking why would God make an imperfect creation? He didn't. Sin brought on death and disease.
And a longer leg would stay in the same species, and thus, you would not be jumping to a different species.
Example. If you pass down the numbers 2,4,7, they could get rearranged every which way, 4,7,2; 7,4,2, etc. But you are not going to have a 6 [new species] unless it gets introduced somehow, and that takes a mutation.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap no we are getting somewhere..
yes a mutation!
thats evolution, congratulastions... you figured it out
Evolutionary change occurs due to mutation in the genome, changing the animals form to something else.
If the change is an advantage, than the animal has better survival odds, and will pass down these genes to his/her offspring.
Im going to drink beer now, but good night.
markgg1 2 years ago
@markgg1
And how many mutations that are not sterile, lol, that survive and cause a new species have we observed?
none
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@jazzyhap Why are our eyes back to front, and therefore have a blind spot? Why do people get all the gentic dieseases like cystic fibrosis? Why is the tier so good at catching antelope, and the antelope so good at running away from tigers? does god enjoy the spectator sport? Why do animals suffer extremem pain when ebing eaten,.
Its because nature did not design us. We are the accumlation of millions of years of trial and error.
markgg1 2 years ago
@jazzyhap yes but a 'freak' mutation might mean a longer leg, or slightly more fur.... This would mean an advatage for the organism, and better survival. His long leg genes would pass down to his children, who would out run the older animals, which would shy away into extinction, or could still survive if they were lucky.
just a basic example, but it gives basic idea of what evolution is about
markgg1 2 years ago