Evolutionists - question about species?

They claim more time/changes = Ev but Ev isnt true/a fact - More serious issues: Many'll do anything 2 keep God out of the equation. The crux of the problem is many (having limited knowledge) try 2 know what God did by imposing human limitations 4 understanding things 2 God's power/abilities. Only 1 God can occupy infinity & that God is the God of Israel so theres no other gods. Its only fully provable b/c Jesus is the true Son of God. Huge holes in Ev also call in2 ? the BB/abiogenesis (laws of probability says there'd hv 2 b a 95-99% failure rate 4 most changes = no Ev). Evidence 4 God/Jesus/Bible:

Just b/c many scientific finds r true it doesnt mean "all" their claims r true (many dont take time & energy 2 carefully think thru things b4 coming out 4 or against it). Many dont take in2 account all it takes 2 create a universe/life (they tend 2 focus on things "seeming" 2 support what they want 2 &/or u 2 believe).

In science we established laws of physics. We can't see laws of physics. Rather, we see the results/interpret/apply them in accordance with whats observed 2 b true by experiments/calculations. Same is true 4 God. Just b/c we can't see God doesn't mean He doesnt exist.

Theres real evidence 4 some micro-adaptation & 4 some appearance of macro-Ev but most is inconclusive @ best, pure conjecture @ worst. Finding the beginning/reason 4 it all is unattainable by scientific method alone (a billions of yrs old cold case). We didnt see it take place.

Things in Creation show an Intelligent Being was involved or the universe/we wouldnt b here (ignoring how it came 2 b). 4 instance:

1. We hv 2 lungs/2 kidneys - each has a near perfect mirror-image companion organ. It cant b explained away. Making a mirror-image organ takes full reverse engineering/knowledge/understanding of its companion's functions & purpose or it cant b created (2 witnesses in nature).

2. Our bodies r highly symmetrical from 1 side 2 the other. Its impossible unless 1 has an outside overview position allowing full knowledge of the entire organism (i.e. feather color patterns).

3. We hv 2 arms/2 legs. Each is perfectly designed/precisely engineered 2 work with its mirror-image companion. An outside position is required 2 fully comprehend the purpose/functions of the organism, 2 create it 2 such perfection.

4. The "being" of a cell is confined 2 within the cell membrane & cant know much beyond itself. A cell is magnitudes more intelligent than all humanity & has amazing powers 2 know all of an organism's functions/purpose or it isnt the "brain" behind Creation 4 many millions of incredibly diverse species. If Ev had a chance of being the source of Creation only 2 or 3 "kinds" of basic bodies with some related species would exist (would take billions of trillions of yrs longer than the universe has existed 2 hv the slightest chance of producing many millions of incredibly diverse species).

5. Many cells of an organism never contact others much beyond its tiny cell. Cells/organisms r just copies of their parents doing about the same things as all ancestors. U wont find a bird who builds a better nest than their parents & their chicks build even a better nest. U wont find a bear improving living conditions passed on 2 his young. Either a cell has 2 lives - 1 copying its parents & 1 secret life working on improvements or some1 of higher intelligence than all mankind created it all.

6. Others point 2 DNA (RNA in the 1rst organisms). But a cell needs DNA 2 function & DNA cant function without a cell. So, we hv a which came 1rst a cell or DNA problem. W/o 1rst having great intelligence/full knowledge/understanding of how an organism is constructed it cant b created. If an ape finds a combination lock he wouldnt know what it was. Even if he turns the dial over & over again he wouldnt know what he was doing & the chances against getting it right is astronomical - especially if it had 150 or more no. 2 find in the right order & even if he got that far he still wouldnt know what a lock is 4.

A cell has little "intelligence" & DNA is way more complex than a combination lock (especially in higher life forms) so the odds against figuring out & using DNA (in the correct sequence) is many magnitudes higher than 4 a lock). RNA/DNA r building blocks common 2 all life - having 98% of other species' DNA doesnt prove Ev. DNA like a computer code (but way more complex) requires great intelligence 2 identify & assign its proper order - its useless unless u understand it. Give a book 2 an ape. Its useless 2 him as he cant learn from whats written - intelligence is required.

7. In the fossil record we dont find millions of trial & error organisms that should exist if natural selection or fittest survivor is the source of Creation (no organisms existed b4). The odds r so great against near perfection happening 4 many millions of greatly diverse species, it couldnt take place unless 1 had full knowledge/understanding of what theyre doing B4 millions of organisms could b created 2 such precision. If not true millions of misfit organisms with mistakes, having only 1 or 3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head or where an arm should b or a fin where a leg should b should exist. Millions more misfit fossils should exist than of the perfection found in nature.

8. U won't find species like a horse mating a goat, a frog mating fish, a rabbit mating a dog, a lizard mating a bird, a cow mating a hog, etc. Species with similar genes/characteristics rarely mate in the wild. Only a few succeed @ bearing young. Its very rare that a wild crossbreed/hybrid reaches maturity or can bear over 1 litter (usually that litter cant produce or has complications that kills off the crossbreed). Only human intervention brings more success but even that has lead 2 some bad results.

9. Ev processes being "the" source of Creation is like having a blind man build a car he's never heard of, seen, touched, heard or rode in. It cant b done without 1rst teaching him about the functions/necessary parts & how 2 put it 2gether 4 the car 2 function.

10. Look @ the huge amount of intelligence/knowledge/understanding/tim… & energy used 2 create & improve an airplane's capabilities (& many mistakes). If ppl didnt fully learn what 2 do we'd still b earthbound.

11. Creation is astronomically more complex than an airplane. The more complex an organism, the greater the amount of intelligence/knowledge/understanding needed 2 create it. It can only b done by an Intelligent Designer who already fully understands what He's doing - the sheer complexity of man is evidence of God (airplanes show we're created in God's image - God had 2 b the source of all Creation or it couldnt exist let alone evolve).

12. An incredibly Intelligent Being, capable of building a universe, knows the environment His earthly organisms r 2 occupy. So, He built in adaptability so His organisms could survive various environments.

13. Earth happens 2 b in the best possible orbit 2 support life. It has the right amount of gravity, the right axis & rotation speed, the right atmosphere (& ozone layer/Van Allen belt/magnetic field) & needed amount of water. The moon's the right size & in the right orbit 2 provide tidal cycles needed by organisms. Just 1 or 2 relatively small variants in our orbit/environment & most likely life would b very different & higher forms of life wouldve died off in a relatively short time, if they couldve survived.

---

Problem is theres many religions, built on what man wants God 2 b like. I realized they cant all b right (Theres 1 Bible - why so many interpretations? II Pet 1:**19-21). Religion wont teach u much about God (they cant teach what they don't know) but God knows what He's doing. Who knows more about a house, the Builder or those moving in later?

Many miss this: Jesus is the only 1 in history who stated He's "the" way, "the" truth & "the" life & no 1 gets 2 God w/o Him (Jn 14:6; 5:39; 10:1,7; Acts 4:12) & is the only 1 who came from God. Its fully true or theres no truth & cant b any God (He knows what He's doing or He's not God). Either Jesus told the whole truth or He's a false prophet, among many, who should b disregarded.

Since Jesus is the only way 2 know God, "the" whole truth was complete & finished thru Jesus. So any claimed new or other religious beliefs or from self-proclaimed prophets/ teachers r invalid & wont lead u 2 God. God always knew all Jesus was 2 do.

Jesus couldnt hv done nor said whats written in the NT unless He fully knew the entire OT (NT didnt exist while Jesus was on earth). Jesus couldnt hv known the entire OT unless God was with Him. The Apostles couldnt write the NT unless Jesus allowed them 2 remember & know why He was here (Lk 24:25-27,45) - Only God could cause it.

Whoever seeks Jesus Christ with all his heart & soul will find God & His Kingdom (u shall know the truth & it'll set u free). U can lead a horse 2 water but u cant make it drink. Why should God want u 2 live with Him 4ever if u dont want 2 know Him His way (reason 4 free will - Jn 1:12-13)? The truth of God remains 4ever unchanged while things of a man dies with him, including his religions/gods made in his image.

God hates us b/c of our sins - neither being a good person as judged by men or religion can save u. But God also loves us dearly enough 2 send His Son 2 die for our sins - so that thru Jesus our sins could b 4given if we sincerely turn 2 Him - Theres eternal hope only in Jesus & His Bible.

voyc4rmwldrns

You obviously have never taken the time to do even a minimal amount of research on this subject. How old are you, 15?

>>So, how have we ever had one species evolve into another?

Different populations of the same species can geographically separate from each other. Let's assume a species did this and let's call the two groups "A" and "B". Over multiple generations, the respective gene pools of both "A" and "B" change (due to mutation, genetic drift, etc) but don't mix with each other because the populations are separated. After millions of years (or less) the two populations can reach a point where A is still "able to breed among themselves" and B is still able to breed among themselves too, but the populations have become different enough TO EACH OTHER that they no longer resemble each other and "are not able to breed with members" of the other population. At this point we'd call the group two different species.

This act has been scientifically observed and verified, using fruitflies, E Coli, and other organisms. Go to a libary and read up on the Lenski experiment.

>>Or how could a monkey have evolved into a

>>homosapien in the same scenario?

That's not the way evolution works. Homo sapeins didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans just happen to have a more recent common ancestor than, say, humans and bears.

>>Lets say that by chance, a male an female evolved at

>>the same time.

Again, that's not the way evolution works. Evolution works on populations, and if an organism sexually reproduces, then there are already males and females in the population. The lines between different species are not so fine that a pair of species A literally gives birth to a litter of species B.

>>It seems like it takes a lot of faith to believe this.

No it doesn't. You just have to actually take the time to read up subjects instead of being a pretentious creationist twit.

Listen up, DumbF*ck.

Speciation occurs when two populations stop exchanging genes (sex).

"How did the dinosaur evolve into a bird if once a dinosaur became a bird, it could not longer go breed with a dinosaur."

That's the point. It couldn't exchange genes with the dino, therefore it speciated.

Also, dinosaurs did not automatically "transform" into a bird. This happened gradually, through transitional stages (all organisms are considered transitional, unless they die without producing offspring). For example, in mammals, tree-climbing mammals evolved enlarged flaps of skin (sugar gliders, flying squirrels, etc.), and some of THOSE evolved into a form that is capable of flight (bats).

"Lets say that by chance, a male an female evolved at the same time."

It doesn't take two organisms to "evolve into a same species at the same time." It just takes one, and this one passes its traits onto its offspring. Think of selection in dogs, for example.

Eventually, two different "breeds" of dogs will be unable to reproduce, potentially due to several reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolatio...

(temporal, behavioral, habitat, or post-zygotic isolation)

Even now, a small dog and a large dog that are unable to reproduce are technically considered different species, because they are mechanically isolated.

It doesn't take faith when there's evidence in genetics, anatomy/morphology, palaeontology, and in so many more branches of science. Some of these misunderstandings can be cleared up if only you'd take a class in basic biology.

You're assuming that males and females of a species have to evolve simultaneously for a new species or genus to be formed. You might've heard about Mitochondrial Eve, assumed first homo sapien. But she was notorious for (most likely) not having a Mitochondrial Adam.

It refers to a group collectively evolving, not one individual.

Example (this is very basic)

A male has a gene that benefits him. He reporduces with a female. His babies may or may not have the gene. His children that do have the gene benefit pass that onto their children. After a few generations A large portion of the species will have that new gene.

Well, to be perfectly frank, it's because we pick an arbitrary generational point with which to define a species, and define them by the characteristics of that generation.

When whatever species we're examining gets far enough away to be significantly different physically, or unable to interbreed with the generation we picked to begin with, we say that new marker point is a new species.

In answer to the unasked question yes, this means that when you get right down to it, what species something is becomes an arbitrarily defined distinction. Either something gets defined as a species when we find a fossil of it, or else we define it as a species when we first come across it and describe it physically.

From that point on, when the population changes enough that it meets the criteria of being significantly different and/or unable to breed with the original species we defined, then we draw the cut-off line and say everything in the population after that belongs to the new species.

However, none of that invalidates evolution, because one of the things we've learned from watching organisms in the world around us and comparing them to the fossil record (imagine the world around us as a movie we're watching, and the fossil records as some production photographs from old movies) is that evolution occurs by very slight generational differences taking place and simply mounting up over the course of time until all together, they amount to a big difference.

In virtually no case does evolution expect that one generation will be, say, a monkey and then in the next generation a human being. It doesn't work that way. Let me explain.

Our closest living relative is the chimpanzee. Let's pretend we are descended from the chimp (we're descended from a common ancestor, but it's just easier to draw the comparison between two extant animals).

The human and chimpanzee genome both contain about 25,000 genes, and there are approximately 600 genetic differences between us. Are you with me so far?

Well, we know from fossil remains we've gathered some of the changes that took place along the way, and about when they happened, so we can say that we were the same species between six and seven million years ago. Let's go with the conservative figure and say six million years.

That's one genetic change every ten-thousand years.

One of the first changes we're aware of is that humans lost a bone in their hand for "knuckle walking", which meant we were more reliant on bipedal locomotion than chimpanzees (which cannot walk upright). Well, one day, for whatever reason some population of our ancestors had to start relying more on walking upright. Perhaps it was because the area of Africa we evolved in was undergoing rapid deforestation at the time, meaning we had to spend more time walking to get from tree to tree to get food.

So, those apes in that area which could most easily walk across the open ground were able to make it to more food, less of them starved, and they passed on that advantage. It didn't have to be a big one. It could have been as tiny as being able to walk upright for five minutes as opposed to four, but it was enough to start pushing the genes for apes that could walk.

Each generation, though, the trees grew a bit more distant, so our environment kept favoring apes that could walk just that little bit further. In a thousand years, maybe our population had evolved legs strong enough to stretch that walking time to ten minutes, maybe twenty. In every other way, they'd be virtually identical to their cousins, and they would still be able to breed with them provided the two populations came together, but the rift between the two species was started, and then you just add in slow changes like that over a long period of time.

And if you know where to look on the human body, you'll find that we're still evolving. For example, we're evolving shorter jawlines, so most of our species can no longer accommodate a third set of molars, but we have not evolved long enough to not to grow the teeth. It's one part of us that's in flux.

We've also mostly evolved away from having thirteen pairs of ribs like a chimpanzee to only twelve, but ten percent or so of our species still carries the old gene, so about one in ten of us has thirteen pairs of ribs and not twelve.

There is a muscle apes and monkeys use to swing from branches, called the palmaris longus muscle. It serves us no use, so we've begun to evolve away from it. Nearly fifteen percent of people are born without that muscle these days.

That's where you see evolution taking place. It's not us suddenly going from monkey to man, but changing as a population in little, tiny ways over the course of a long period of time. It just looks like a huge change when you get to see it all at once like we do with jumps in the fossil record.

I love how you use scientific definitions of words and concepts to describe Evolutionary theory yet, when those same scientific definitions of words and concepts logically disproves the existence of the Christian version of "God," you dismiss them. Even if Evolution was somehow proved to be false, how would that "prove" the existence of the logically disprovable Christian version of "God?" You're provably wrong, whether Evolution is right or not...

"Evolutionists - question about species?"

You shoulda asked this in the science section if you wanted an answer...

Oh, that's right; you didn't want an answer; you wanted a soapbox.

Kid, if you have a real addendum to Theory of Evolution, publish it.

The scientists' children will line up to shoot you down.

Theism is a crutch for people who don't understand science.

~

It happened very slowly; they say it takes about 20,000 years for a gene to mutate, and your skin to get a tiny bit darker or lighter for instance. But, if that is true, then that is the way God created things.

Beneficial mutations are spread through populations, its not one individual who suddenly wakes up and decides not to have a tail.

Cool story bro.