Evolution

How did I know you would say that?

 

Because it was FUN!!!

 

I saw this video by Hugh Ross (a Progressive Creationist, one of the guys who believe in the age of the earth, but not evolution) believes that animal species have an extinction span just like an individual animal has a life span. This is based on body size, reproduction rate, et cetera (this is also how he "disproves" Evolution). By his calculations, when whales existed thousands or millions of years before humans, they kept on going extinct because of their natural extinction rate. Why do we have lots of evidence that many different species of ancient whales existed. God Loves Whales (direct quote from Ross) so he created new ones to replace the old ones--supposedly to amuse himself.

I just needed to share the revelation that "God Loves Whales". Move over John 3:16, we have a new evangelical slogan!

 

And you believe this to be a more sound theory than evolution?

"Because god said so?"

 

mmmm...I wonder what can break this barrier?.....*drumroll*.....behold the mule!

Exhibit A
​

 

I offer this to the discussion,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZtRn1fst-g

 

Agree. Even people with down syndrome have benefits such as a lower risk for cancer and diabetes and who knows they may have immunity to other diseases.

The same gene mutation that gave people immunity to the bubonic plague in the 1500's was passed down and now gives their descendants immunity to AIDS.

 

How do you figure?

 

How do you know that the immunity to the bubonic plague was a gene mutation and not just part of the natural genetic diversity that is the human genome?

Also are you saying that you think people with down syndrome are mutants?

 

I don't. He probably does though...

 

Because people with the mutation don't get sick and those without it do, but mutations are part of the genetic diversity so both are right.

A good example of evolution through mutation is the swine flu virus. The swine flu evolved from 3 strains of flu (avian, human, and swine). Many believe that the virus could mutate again this summer and become a powerful pandemic in the fall. Unlike the 1918 swine flu it has evolved to have the ability to pass from human to human.

The word "mutants" reminds me of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles so it's a bad label. People with down syndrome have 47 chromosomes vs 46 so their DNA is different in that way.

You claim there is a big barrier between kinds/species that can not be crossed yet horses and donkeys are able to mate and produce fertile offspring. Perhaps, the barrier is weaker than you think, but we've already been through this.

 

Once again how do you know that it’s a mutation? Do you feel that having Blue eyes is a mutation? Not everybody has blue eyes but usually having blue eyes is not considered a mutation. Why can’t immunity to the plague be a naturally occurring genetic variation like having blue eyes and not a mutation?

 

First this was my actual claim:

So when you say “kinds/species” you are distorting what I said because the scientific term “species” can not be equated with the “kinds” of the Bible.

Next I never said that horses and donkeys were not able to mate or have offspring. Also I believe that I pointed out an article that stated that in a very few cases a hinnys (a female hybrid of a horse and a donkey) were fertile but if you’ll notice; when, in a very few cases, a hinny is able to produce offspring those offspring return to being either a horse or a donkey and are no longer hybrids or are an infertile mule. Which seems to go along with what I said about a seeming barrier that no amount of “evolutionary process” can go beyond.

As for the barrier being weak, perhaps but I never said it was a hard line that would not allow hybrids, just a barrier that would not allow for evolution.

 

Sorry, you seem to be confused. I'm not interested in trapping you into contradictions. I was just mentioning that your attempt to turn my analogy - to imply that it applies equally to both sides (and thus doesn't apply to either, and thus doesn't apply to you - standard debate procedure for anyone who relies more on doubt than evidence) doesn't work in this situation. The fact that the theory of evolution constantly changes while the Bible remains the same would seem to indicate this pretty much undeniably.

 

So you're saying that, despite being immutable and retaining its original holy message for those willing to hear it throughout a number of translations, The Bible can't do something as simple as count?

And no-one would say that the above sounds "a little bit like evolution" if they knew what the theory of evolution actually proposes.

 

I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm saying that, given the number of generations, the number of organisms and so on, evolution is inevitable.

No, you haven't just said that. You've said that and fairly consistently suggested that evolutionists trying to fill those holes are "clutching at straws", desperately holding on to a theory that you think is tenuously evidenced, rather than trying to make a better theory. If someone comes up with a theory, it is tested. If the theory isn't quite right, it is refined until it squares with what we know of the world. If we learn something new about the world, the theory has to change. This is not a weakness, no matter how important it seems to be to you to paint it as one. A weakness would be to take a person's first assertion about the universe and believe it, either ignoring, changing or destroying anything that doesn't fit with it. Not to draw any parallels, but pretty much every religion with a holy text does exactly that.

Actually, my implication was that you do believe in those things. If you didn't I could at least respect your joined up thinking - it would be stupid to believe in evolution if you didn't believe in mutation - but since you do, you're just denying something that is pretty much inevitable.

And it's not obvious to you why that is? We named the species a long time before we thought of evolution. The names - these "kinds" that are being mentioned - are not particularly grounded in biology, just in what the animals look like.

 

It would not allow for evolution within one generation. That's kind of different. If you can believe and indeed state that the same mother can produce two offspring which could not mate with each other (e.g. an infertile hybrid and a fertile non-hybrid), why aren't you able to make the leap to two species having a common ancestor?

 

Because he doesn't want to.

That's the only reason I can figure.

 

Actually, it seems you are the one confused, the truth never changes, it is only what is false that has to be constantly updated.

As for your analogy, I never implied that it applies equally to both sides, your analogy applies only to evolution, it's evolutionists that are blindfolded to the truth and are groping in the dark for the what they think is the truth.

 

Count? What in the world are you talking about?

Thanks.