B Dash

The last time I posted this I got more comments of "you don't know evolution" or "that's not what you claim it to be" type answers and completely ignored the question itself. So here's what I'm going to do, for those who want the simple rundown of it, I'll post my same question back up, and those who want a little more complexity to the question can read further, I still want an answer to this question though and I will continue this until I do. This is a very important question that everyone avoids, either give a sensible answer or say you don't know, regardless though, stop avoiding it and answer it. This is called Yahoo! Answers, not Yahoo! Avoid Answers.

Basic Rundown: According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations (changes) which should benefit them but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish otherwise it's newly advanced information get's blended back in with the population. So basically, death is how we get ahead (There's no way around it so stop arguing this point).

Why is it wrong to kill? Why is it not a good thing? Why not promote it? Hitler killed Jews because he thought they were inferior, just as Japan killed Americans brutally for the same reason. How is this wrong? We should be applauding it IF evolution is true.

Complexity of the Question: In evolution, the way we are thought to arise is by increase in genetic complexity from macro-molecules to human beings via mutations, natural selection, etc. This has never been observed though so I won't go any further with it (You may think that it has but it simply just has not been seen to occur naturally by any means, bacteria digesting nylon is not an viable explanation because it already had the genetic information for it so don't give me that, it gets annoying hearing it 100 times a day).

"Evolution isn't a religion, it's science." Oh it most certainly is a religion and is not science.

From Dictionary.com: Religion - something one believes in and follows devotedly; a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe; etc.

From Dictionary.com: Science - The OBSERVATION, identification, description, EXPERIMENTAL investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

(Macro)Evolution cannot be observed or tested (No, it can't, don't post a comment saying "yes it can" because that's baloney. Micro-evolution (variation) can be observed, mistaking it for Macro is a common misconception because there are limits. You will never see a fish give birth to a non-fish) therefore it is not science, there comes a point when you have to "believe" something happened because there are numerous holes in the theory. It is a religion, there's no way around it unless you change the definitions of the two words above.

"Mutations created something new." No they haven't, never has 1 mutation been seen to increase information. Cows with extra legs are mutations, it already had the information for a leg (not an increase in information), and it can't run any faster (that's not beneficial). If it grows a wing, then that would be interesting, tell me that.

"It wasn't mutations, it was a gradual process." That would be variation within a species, you will get all types of dogs and cats but that dog will not turn into a bear and that cat will not turn into a tiger. This would be where an increase in genetic complexity/information would be required which has not been observed. A few simple changes in the nucleotides would kill an animal if it were supposedly changing from 1 kind to another.

"Natural selection will change it." No doubt about that, but it won't create anything "new" in genetics. If you take a bunch of dogs with long hair and short hair, and separate them. The dogs with short hair will weed out the recessive gene of long hair and vice versa. They didn't gain anything new, it simply kept 1 bit of information stronger by disposing of the other. Put them back in the same area and the genes for short/long hair will be restored. You don't lose it all until you have it all.

Those are just the basic misunderstandings that I needed to explain apparently. I know more than enough about evolution to comprehend the basic foundation of it. If evolution is true and we are animals, then why do you think people act as such?

So why is it wrong to kill if death is the way we get ahead? I can refer to Hitler and Japan again if necessary, if anything they were doing a good deed to evolutionary standards. Do explain please.

I personally think the reason I don't get an actual answer to this question is because there is no answer and no one wants to admit that, regardless, I'm interested if you have any answer to this, sensible or not.

According to evolutionary theory, organisms undergo mutations which should benefit them (never been observed) but then the rest of the population has to die in order for this new higher species to flourish (this is just the gist of it, I won't go into complex details). So basically, death is how we get ahead.

Why is it wrong to kill? Why is it not a good thing? Why not promote it?

This primarily pertains to evolutionists but if you have a specific religion or something then your insights on this are welcome.

If some believe in creation (Christians (as well as myself)), then most others believe in evolution (particularly atheists, but not necessarily), however some don't believe either. What do you believe if you are one of these people?

What are your reasons of believing in creation, evolution or this third option?

Just a curiosity question. :D

Do you think anyone would talk him seriously? (or me for that matter since this is just a "waste your time question" :D)

Just hypothetical, don't go all voo-doo on me o.O