Evolution in pieces.

my savior isn't lost. u are. for all are lost until the shepard finds them. My parents loved me, god loves me and i hope you open your eyes to the light.

quote:

---

give me evidence that there isn't god.

---

"Give me evidence that there isn't an all-powerful invisible pink unicorn ruling the universe."------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

my savior isn't lost. u are. for all are lost until the shepard finds them. My parents loved me, god loves me and i hope you open your eyes to the light.

---

I don't doubt that your parents loved you. And I know you would love to believe in God - we all would. But wanting something to be real doesn't make it real.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

all i have to say is i believe in christ and you can never change that. because when the murder who killed my parents was about to shoot me he had a seizer.

Good, you have no reason to give up your faith. There is no connection between faith and science. Many scientists believe as you do and many believers have no problem with the conclusions of science.

thanks ned i was hopping you would show up. I've been reading your responses and i feel honored to be responded to by you. Its very ironic that im on this forum and im only 14.
But anywaysThe bacteria's tail motor has over 40 parts in it. Now if your saying that life originated from a single cell organism then how did it get the tail? Natural selection says that a species changes by small changes. If natural selection does occur then it would only get 1 or 2 parts. But that wouldn't do much good. even if it got the tail. Because it needs all 40 to work. But with out it next it would dissapear because it inhibits movement.

quote:

---

The bacteria's tail motor has over 40 parts in it. Now if your saying that life originated from a single cell organism then how did it get the tail? Natural selection says that a species changes by small changes. If natural selection does occur then it would only get 1 or 2 parts. But that wouldn't do much good. even if it got the tail. Because it needs all 40 to work. But with out it next it would dissapear because it inhibits movement.

---

If you took a million people and reverted them to pre-civilization savagery, and gave them the goal of building a computer chip, could they do it? Of course not...right away, at least. However, the people will probably want to hunt for food, and will develop weapons. Developing tools will help them develop weapons. They'll find that their wood and metalworking skills allow them to be better in combat - they will take advantage of a skill that developed for a different purpose, and put it to a different use. They'll then find it advantageous to get better at metalworking and tools. Some people will end up accidentally or purposefully running into the properties of chemistry; others will learn how to harness energy for production. Each step plays on the advantages of others, until eventually you have an atomic-age civilization with computer chips.The same holds true with a bacterium. One step plays on the next; even if the original use of the original parts wasn't at all related to locomotion, their initial purposes can be used for other uses. For example, you could have a surface receptor protein; a new mutation creates a protein that encourages the surface protein to stab outwards and damage an attacking cell. It might eventually serve to function more like a syringe. On top of that, any change that increases the length or maneuverability of the syringe is an advantage. However, at this point, the "syringe"'s motion actually has gotten to the point where it moves the cell slightly. Natural selection takes over from there.Just a sample possible evolutionary route.

Well even if that is correct then you still believe that it just happend with absoulutly no disign?? Purely chance

and furthermore almost all mutations are harmful. And your saying that all those mutations happend and didn't miss once?

DNA similarities is also evidence for a Common Creator or common designer. The single common ancestor has been refuted- see Woese's work. Even Darwin wrote of a few common ancestors.The fossil record supports stasis followed by the sudden appearance of new forms- see punctuated equilibrium. Descent by mod. is not what is found in the fossil record- unless you are talking about snails evolving into snails and not the range of change required by the theory of evolution.Natural selection- an idea proposed by a creationist (Ed Blyth) before Darwin plagarized it. Who are the fittest? Those who survive to reproduce- it has nothing to do with actual health or any other benifits that may exist. Natural selction cannot create anything from scratch. It only modifies an already existing design. The moths are a perfect example. Both types existed. Then one type became more predominant because the environment changed. As with the beak of the finch it has nothing to do with the grand sweep of the theory of evolution but has everything to do with the deception of evolutionists.

That's a nice story Rei- you must be a fan of K. Miller. He spins the same type of story. What we would like is some evidence.

Congratulations on refuting the irrelevant half of a two-part process: evolution.Remember, evolution is natural selection and random mutation. Natural selection doesn't create, it selects. Random mutation doesn't select, it creates.You're not going to get very far pointing out that selection doesn't create, and that random creation doesn't select. That's obvious. But why? Because of random mutation. Then one kind became more prevalent because the environment changed the selection pressure.Natural selection isn't the source of new traits. Random mutation is. Natural selection is the process by which advantageous traits become prevalent.

For a biochemical process that occured at the molecular level some eons ago? Exactly what evidence do you think would survive?We might as well ask for evidence of a recording of the Sermon on the Mount. But we don't ask you for impossible evidence. Maybe you could afford us the same courtesy?

Any time that you can show that random mutations culled by natural selection can do anything it would be fine by me. Without that evidence all you have is a belief. Beliefs are not science.It is not my fault that the theory of evolution is based upon beliefs and not evidence. That is why the ToE is a useless theory and no scientific advancement has come about because of it."No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul GrasseAny evidence to support your assertion that both kinds of moths existed because of random mutations?[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003][This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003]

Ah, but engineering is science, right? So you'd accept the fact that engineers use natural selection + random mutation to design circuits and jet-planes far superior than anything humans could develop unaided as evidence of the creative power of RM + NS? I mean, you wouldn't want to be inconsistent, right? Or accused of ignoring evidence contrary to your position?Right? To the contrary - it's responsible for significant advancements in medical science, electronics, and engineering. Congratulations on arguing against the irrelevant half again. Guess what? "No matter how numerous they may be, males do not produce any kind of offspring." Of course one half a creative pair won't produce anything. Natural selection plus random mutation do produce evolution, as Grasse clearly implies. What kind of evidence do you think would exist? Random mutation - an observed process - is the simplest natural explanation. If you want to say it was God's hand, that's your burden of proof, not mine. We observe random mutations all the time, some that even give rise to pigmintation differences in plenty of organisms. That we may not have directly observed such a mutation event in specifically moths is not relevant. What mechanism do you think prevents it from working in moths when it works for almost everything else?