what does this have to do with evolution?
I’ve read a lot on the subject, it’s not hard to see how wrong it is.
How have we observed evolution on “this time scale”? What DNA proves evolution?
It’s not obvious that you have any understanding of evolutionary theory, from your statements.
Well Dogs never existed before humans came along and domesticated them, they were originaly wolves, which is considered a diffrent species, and if a wolf turning into a poodle isn’t evolution I don’t know what is. Now people were breading these wolves/dogs for specific traits it took thousands of years to get the breeds we have today, and i’m sure if people were selecting dogs to breed that could walk on there hind legs better we could have bi-pedal dogs today instead of tiny-toy-poodles, it just takes ALOT of time, with animals that reproduce relativly slowly. Also your only considering living animals, the fossile record is now incredibly dense with many missing links of all sorts of specieas to the point where scientist are now arguing what consitutes something to be a new species, this is a serious issue.
Actually yes we are… just much further down the evolutionary line, in the end everything is related to everything of cource.
Evolution, how we got how we are today, happened through random processes. Or so it appears. Perhaps these random processes are not quite so random, but the work of God.
Its an example of showing how things that appear to have happened randomly may not have been random just because they look like it.
You may be right, and you may be wrong, therefore you can’t say that with such 100% surety.
Actually it is I now have an interest in Biology I always found it boring before, it has meaning structure to it now, Biology without Evolution, is like Physics without Mathmatics.
I would go further I’d say it IS the explanation, because well, it is.
[QUOTEcyberpunk]
Actually yes we are… just much further down the evolutionary line, in the end everything is related to everything of cource.
[/QUOTE]
so your saying simple because two things have similar qualities they are related?
You don’t seem to have any concrete evidence proving evolution yourself.
Don’t you find it interesting how some people can say that creation IS the explanation, because well, it is, with 100% positivity, and then other people can say that evolution IS the explanation, because well, it is, with the same exact 100% positivity?
Have you considered that?
Isn’t it interesting?
If God Guided every mutation of the species, we would have Evolved a lot more quickly then we have.
If you were God would you create a series of individual species kill them, create some more species kill them, this is what has happend, we’ve had five mass exinctions, along with probably thousands of exinctions between them 99% of all species are exinct, or would you create all life in a single shot, one object one cell that could create all life. I actually don’t belive this either, I belive the universe created the first life (a simple replicator) as well, and if there is a God, he created the universe. So in the end If God did create the universe, he also Created us.
Apparently you also don’t understand what science does…and what it does not do. It does not “prove” anything, it explains things.
If you want proofs, stick to mathematics…but if you seek an explanation for how we and all other life on earth came to be how it is, read up on evolution.
It’s fascinating.
Well there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support immutable species creationism. So Forest’s arguemnt that Tehre is no evidecne fro Evlution is mute, because there is even less evidence of his theory.
Evolution by natural selection is NOT random! but it also is not something that could be “guided”.
It’s not merely that he has no evidence, he also does not have a theory! or even a hypothesis of creation.
I didn’t say that from a personal stand point, I said it from a scientific stand point, people once said that the Earth was flat with 100% confidence, and i’m sure there are still people on earth that do say the earth is flat (Tribes and such, especially in areas with little contact, like amazon’s, ect.) just as there are people that still say humans were created with 100% assurance. And yes I do think its interesting, I was once a Creationist, and it was a hard battle with myself to realize the truth, the first time i looked at nature and realized I new it had evolved it was an unsettlign feeling, it was against everything I was raised and led to belive, it wasn’t too long ago that I came to this understanding, and it still feels weird to say i’m an evolutionst, the same people I used to argue against, its hard to change ones world view, and admit that you were wrong, but thats part of life, and its only interesting in the same way the egyptians belived in multiple rediculous Gods, there belifes were un scientific, and silly, just as creationism will some day be regarded amongst humans.
Right there you’re overstepping the bounds of science. And giving evolution a bad name.
There is nothing wrong or incorrect about believing in Evolution through God.
If someone is able reconcile their belief and is able to come to a compromise between evlotution some sort of divine guide. More power to them.
If you don’t beleive in God fine, but that has nothing to do with science. So dont’ combine your trying to prove evolution with trying to disprove God. They are seperate and distinct issue.
Evolution through God is not evolution by natural selection. It’s creationism.
No, man, you missed what I said. Remember the part about ‘one day might be a million years’?
Do you know exactly what God is thinking? Perhaps He had a purpose in killing off certain species. Maybe they were eating all his other animals (dinosaurs). I don’t know.
I believe in God, but squirrel is right, Natural Selection doesn’t need God to proceed, God could have created the Universe, and there for created the laws that govern Natural Selection, but Natural Selection itself doesn’t need God on its own, now does it need God to create it, is another debate.