Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God vs. Science
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 121 of 164 (455930)
02-14-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ICANT
02-14-2008 2:24 PM


Re: Re-Micro Macro
ICANT
quote:
I know what evolution is.
No, you don't. The fact that you used your farm animal as examples of "evolution" tells me you don't know what it is. The smallest unit that can evolve is a population, not a few individuals.
quote:
Evolution = change over time.
No, it's not, at least not completely.
quote:
I do not believe evolution as preached here.
And what is being preached here about evolution?
quote:
I started out with a hog and I ended up with a hog.
That's because the smallest unit that could evolve is a population, not an individual or a few individuals. When I say a population, I mean thousands of interbreeding individuals occupying a well defined niche.
You're not even getting the very basics of evolution right. Why would anyone believe you when you get up on your podium with your reverend hat on and start preaching against evolution?
Again, I'm not saying I believe in evolution. In fact, I don't think I've ever stated on here my stance on the matter. But that doesn't mean I have to accept strawman arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2008 2:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2008 3:39 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 122 of 164 (455932)
02-14-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ICANT
02-14-2008 2:52 PM


Re: Re-Walking
quote:
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
And the analogy doesn't claim otherwise. But if we breed a specific species of fruit fly, seperate a group from the main population, and add a selective pressure (mild amounts of a pesticide, for instance), the seperated population will eventually develop into an organism very similar to but not identical to the original population. If we do such things for long enough, the two populations will no longer interbreed, and a true new species will have formed. We've done this in the lab, ICANT. Your strawmanning of evolution and dishonest remarks regarding analogies meant to help you understand amount to lies.
He was still a fruit fly.
In the same family? Yes. Same species? No.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Evolution has been observed. It is a fact. The mechanism it describes has been extremely accurate in predicting what we should find int he fossil record, and no evidence has ever been shown to disprove it.
You get that fruit fly to be something other than a fruit fly then claim it is a fact.
We have observed new species int he lab. if you want a larger change, you'll have to look at the fossil record - we don't live long enough for family/genara/order changes, even with generational rates as rapid as fruit flies or bacteria.
Neither has evidence been shown to disprove God either.
Never said it was. You're welcome to follow your "God of the Gaps." All I say is that there is no evidence for god, so I see no reason to believe in one. Same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
You're shifting the goalposts to a point where human lifespans dictate that we can never make an experiment to your satisfaction.
I gave you evidence for 66 million years of a foram remaining a foram.
The same 66 million years man is supposed to have evolved from what was left after the extinction event of 66 million years ago.
I am not moving the goal posts. They are right where they have always been. For evolution to be true transmutation has to have occurred many times. There is no evidence. You say there is so where is it?
You gave evidence of 330 different species of foram over 66 million years. New species arose. No new family or genara or order was formed, but that doesn't necessarily happen, particularly if a given set of species is well-suited to its environment. Again, crocodiles haven't changed much in the past several million years, and neither have sharks - they're very well adapted for their biological niche. New species for when selective pressure is added allowing a sub-population to become dominant over the previous population.
I've told you this twice now: evolution has nothing to do with transmutation. At this point, I can only comclude that you are deliberately lying.
quote:
Rhavin writes:
So where is the cutoff, ICANT? If it's not a new species that you want, what is it?
It makes no difference how much change there is if it is the same animal.
"Different species" are not the "same animal," ICANT. We have seen new species form under direct observation. You claim they're the same animal because they aren't different enough for you. So again, I ask you: where is the cutoff point, ICANT? Where, exactly where, is the line I have to show you to prove evolution? Define it now, and be specific.
I will put my horses back up as my avatar. They are both full grown horses. Tell me how they could produce offspring.
Your avatar has not yet updated.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2008 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by teen4christ, posted 02-14-2008 3:12 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 123 of 164 (455933)
02-14-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rahvin
02-13-2008 9:55 PM


Rahvin writes:
Out of curiosity, what would you say if scientists were able to, from base organic chemicals we know occur naturally in environments devoid of life (see: Titan, Saturn's moon), over several steps cause life to form? If scientists are eventually able to create life from nonlife, what will be your reaction? I mean, that will be solid proof that life on this planet could have arisen by totally natural means - and without any evidence of any other cause, it becomes the logical default explanation.
I'm actually surprised that you didn't argue that scientists have already 'created' life (cloning, genetic engineering, etc.) I was all prepared to break out in a speech about how that's not creating life, but altering it.
However, as such that I haven't the need to do so, I'll answer your question.
I personally believe that either
  • science will never be able to do that
    or
  • in the time it would take for science to do so, God will have come.
    However, under the event that science does prove that life could be created from non-living matter, I would probably want to know what the precautions were to make sure the robot sent to Titan (under the extreme case of trying to create life from non-living matter) didn't have any life on it that might mar the experiment.
    Then, if I was sure that it was correct and science created life, I'm not sure what I'd do. I would probably (actually would) admit that aboigenesis would be possible, but that doesn't prove that the cell(s) created could, in any way, shape, or form, could become something as complex as humans even in hundreds of millions of years.

    Iesous
    Christos
    H
    Theos
    H
    Uios
    Soter
    Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2008 9:55 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 127 by teen4christ, posted 02-14-2008 3:21 PM Crooked to what standard has replied
     Message 129 by Rahvin, posted 02-14-2008 3:25 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

      
    Crooked to what standard
    Member (Idle past 5845 days)
    Posts: 109
    From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
    Joined: 01-31-2008


    Message 124 of 164 (455934)
    02-14-2008 3:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by Taz
    02-14-2008 1:20 AM


    Taz writes:
    To distinguish the difference between micro and macro evolution, it helps to think of it like walking. If you take a step from where you are to the next house, you are one step closer to it. If you take another step, you are another step closer to it. The small changes in your position by taking those small steps you could see as "micro" evolution. Now, if you take enough steps over long periods of time, you could end up a thousand miles away.
    Yes, but what if there are huge walls that you can't possibly get through between you and the next 'house'? Just like in biology, you could assume that the distances between, say, a chimp and a human as the distance between two houses. However, I'm thinking (THINKING) that there are boundaries that won't allow a chimp to reach the human 'house' because of this giant, impassable wall between the two.
    Remember Mendel's laws....

    Iesous
    Christos
    H
    Theos
    H
    Uios
    Soter
    Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by Taz, posted 02-14-2008 1:20 AM Taz has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 126 by teen4christ, posted 02-14-2008 3:20 PM Crooked to what standard has replied
     Message 128 by subbie, posted 02-14-2008 3:22 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

      
    teen4christ
    Member (Idle past 5799 days)
    Posts: 238
    Joined: 01-15-2008


    Message 125 of 164 (455935)
    02-14-2008 3:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 122 by Rahvin
    02-14-2008 3:03 PM


    Re: Re-Walking
    Rahvin writes
    quote:
    Again, crocodiles haven't changed much in the past several million years, and neither have sharks - they're very well adapted for their biological niche.
    While I mostly agree with you, I'd be careful with the use of the word "change" in this context. The fossil record can only tell us about the physiological changes or nonchanges. It tells us nothing about the chemical changes or nonchanges.
    The sharks and crocs today may resemble greatly the sharks and crocs a hundred million years ago, but their biological chemistry could have gone through myriads of changes that could prevent gene flow if we were to somehow bring forward through time a group of sharks or crocs and introduce them into the current population today.
    So, I'd say that the crocs and sharks have not changed much physically for millions of years because their physical features are very well adapted to their environment, but we can't say for sure if the sharks and crocs today actually resemble the sharks and crocs a hundred million years ago.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 122 by Rahvin, posted 02-14-2008 3:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 130 by dwise1, posted 02-14-2008 3:31 PM teen4christ has not replied

      
    teen4christ
    Member (Idle past 5799 days)
    Posts: 238
    Joined: 01-15-2008


    Message 126 of 164 (455936)
    02-14-2008 3:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 124 by Crooked to what standard
    02-14-2008 3:11 PM


    Ichthus writes
    quote:
    Yes, but what if there are huge walls that you can't possibly get through between you and the next 'house'?
    Your huge walls are imaginary when we are talking about biology. All biological lifeforms share the same genetic language. You could literally take a set of human genes and insert them into a bacterial plasmid and the bacteria would express those genes as if they were their own.
    Your so-called impassable barriers just doesn't exist. The only real barrier is distance just as the only real barrier in biology between one species and another is time.
    quote:
    Remember Mendel's laws....
    Mendel was talking about inheritence from one generation to the next. Going back to the analogy of walking, Mendel was talking about standing still. He didn't know that DNA existed or that DNA mutation was inevitable. In other words, he didn't know that you could walk. All he knew was that if you stood still in one position at 12 o'clock, at 12:01 you'd still be at that position. He didn't know that you will inevitably start walking.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 124 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 3:11 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 135 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 9:17 PM teen4christ has not replied

      
    teen4christ
    Member (Idle past 5799 days)
    Posts: 238
    Joined: 01-15-2008


    Message 127 of 164 (455937)
    02-14-2008 3:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 123 by Crooked to what standard
    02-14-2008 3:06 PM


    Ichthus writes
    quote:
    I personally believe that either
    science will never be able to do that
    Do precells count?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 3:06 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 136 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 9:20 PM teen4christ has replied

      
    subbie
    Member (Idle past 1254 days)
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 128 of 164 (455938)
    02-14-2008 3:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 124 by Crooked to what standard
    02-14-2008 3:11 PM


    However, I'm thinking (THINKING) that there are boundaries that won't allow a chimp to reach the human 'house' because of this giant, impassable wall between the two.
    Thinking, hoping, praying, imagining, fantasizing, making up, guessing, assuming....
    Those are all wonderful words. However, in science, we look for evidence. Do you have any of that? Or is it all just a creo dream?

    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
    We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 124 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 3:11 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 129 of 164 (455939)
    02-14-2008 3:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 123 by Crooked to what standard
    02-14-2008 3:06 PM


    quote:
    Rahvin writes:
    Out of curiosity, what would you say if scientists were able to, from base organic chemicals we know occur naturally in environments devoid of life (see: Titan, Saturn's moon), over several steps cause life to form? If scientists are eventually able to create life from nonlife, what will be your reaction? I mean, that will be solid proof that life on this planet could have arisen by totally natural means - and without any evidence of any other cause, it becomes the logical default explanation.
    I'm actually surprised that you didn't argue that scientists have already 'created' life (cloning, genetic engineering, etc.) I was all prepared to break out in a speech about how that's not creating life, but altering it.
    Glad to surprise you. Those arguments wouldn't have been valid - artificial creation of life using other life as a template (ie, cloning, designer bacteria, etc) does not demonstrate abiogenesis. That requires taking compeltley non-living material and ending up with a self-replicating molecule (like RNA, for example).
    However, as such that I haven't the need to do so, I'll answer your question.
    I personally believe that either
    # science will never be able to do that
    or
    # in the time it would take for science to do so, God will have come.
    Good luck with that
    However, under the event that science does prove that life could be created from non-living matter, I would probably want to know what the precautions were to make sure the robot sent to Titan (under the extreme case of trying to create life from non-living matter) didn't have any life on it that might mar the experiment.
    It's doubtful we'd actually send a robot to Titan to do such an experiment. We'd instead completely sterilize a laboratory environment, and begin with base, non-living organic chemicals that we know do not require life to exist (like those we see on Titan), and go from there. The first steps (spontaneous formation of amino acids, spontaneous formation of amino acids into proteins, etc) have already been completed. It's a exciting field, whether you believe it could be a possible explanation for the first life on Earth or not.
    Then, if I was sure that it was correct and science created life, I'm not sure what I'd do. I would probably (actually would) admit that aboigenesis would be possible,
    Good. Intellectual honesty is a good thing.
    but that doesn't prove that the cell(s) created could, in any way, shape, or form, could become something as complex as humans even in hundreds of millions of years.
    Right, but that's not what abiogenesis is meant to demonstrate. The variety of lifeforms, including descent from common ancestry, is the job of the theory of evolution, which is separate from abiogenesis.
    Perhaps it would help if you could see some examples of the "transitionals" that show single-celled life becoming multi-cellular life? I found them to be very interesting - the examples we have today are even still living, both because they are very well-adapted to their biological niche and because fossilization just doesn't happen for organisms with such easily destroyed bodies, but they are fascinating examples of what evolution predicts.

    When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 3:06 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 130 of 164 (455941)
    02-14-2008 3:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 125 by teen4christ
    02-14-2008 3:12 PM


    Re: Re-Walking
    Case in point were "green fossils" of magnolia leaves. These were leaves that were preserved but which did not mineralize, so protein sequences survived and were studied. Although the leaves were structurally identitical to modern magnolia leaves, the proteins did display patterns of change over time.
    From an article in either Science or Nature from the mid-1980's. I should have a copy stowed away somewhere, but I don't know in which box.

    {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
    ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
    Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
    (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
    Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
    (Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
    Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
    ("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 125 by teen4christ, posted 02-14-2008 3:12 PM teen4christ has not replied

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6769
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 131 of 164 (455942)
    02-14-2008 3:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 121 by teen4christ
    02-14-2008 2:59 PM


    Re-Micro Macro
    Hi t4c,
    teen4christ writes:
    Again, I'm not saying I believe in evolution. In fact, I don't think I've ever stated on here my stance on the matter. But that doesn't mean I have to accept strawman arguments.
    I produced 3 species of hogs that could not breed to each other.
    I was giving a personal example of evolution that I know.
    I also gave an example of 66 million years of evolution that produced 330 different species of forams.
    It seems like after 66 millions years and at least 330 different species in over 500,000 years they were still forams.
    teen4christ writes:
    And what is being preached here about evolution?
    Every life form you see today has evolved from a single cell life form that existed 500 million years ago.
    This transformation has come about by the process of evolution. Evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. There are many factors involved in causing these changes to occure.
    Some processes have been observed to occur.
    Others have never been observed or evidence given for.
    teen4christ writes:
    You're not even getting the very basics of evolution right. Why would anyone believe you when you get up on your podium with your reverend hat on and start preaching against evolution?
    I don't have time to waste on evolution from my pulpit. I preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified for a lost and dying world. All those who do not receive the full free pardon offered by God will spend eternity in a lake of fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels. I also point out how we are supposed to love the people of the world as much as Jesus loved us.
    God Bless,

    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by teen4christ, posted 02-14-2008 2:59 PM teen4christ has not replied

      
    Cjd005
    Junior Member (Idle past 5885 days)
    Posts: 3
    From: Bozeman,MT,USA
    Joined: 02-14-2008


    Message 132 of 164 (455946)
    02-14-2008 3:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
    02-03-2008 1:17 AM


    Rahvin writes:
    "If I replaced the word "God" in your statement with, say, "fairies" or "the flying spaghetti monster" or "your imaginary friend" or "chance," would you be able to show that the statement is incorrect? Would there even be any difference whatsoever?"
    You are right that you can't prove God or the other things exist, but you can't prove that they don't. Because if we say that all I believe in is what I can see, that means I can't believe in you or anything...but cows, really.(because I live in Montana)
    Edited by Cjd005, : errors
    Edited by Cjd005, : No reason given.
    Edited by Cjd005, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 02-03-2008 1:17 AM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 02-14-2008 4:39 PM Cjd005 has not replied

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 133 of 164 (455953)
    02-14-2008 4:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 132 by Cjd005
    02-14-2008 3:56 PM


    "If I replaced the word "God" in your statement with, say, "fairies" or "the flying spaghetti monster" or "your imaginary friend" or "chance," would you be able to show that the statement is incorrect? Would there even be any difference whatsoever?"
    You are right that you can't prove God or the other things exist, but you can't prove that they don't. Because if we say that all I believe in is what I can see, that means I can't believe in you or anything...but cows, really.(because I live in Montana)
    I don't beleive only in what I can see. I believe in that which is supported by evidence, and the logical inferences that spring from that evidence. I have never seen you, but since I see a forum post made by you, I can infer your existence. Likewise, I have never seen an atom, but the evidence allows me to infer their existence.
    I don't pretend I can "disprove" the existence of a deity - the supernatural is unfalsifiable almost by definition. But absent any reason to believe in a supernatural entity (as in, evidence), I see no reason to do so. Exactly as I have no reason to believe in fairies, your imaginary friend, or His Holy Noodliness. A book is no proof at all, else I would need to beleive in Harry Potter. Tradition and popularity are no good, either - both are logical fallacies, and I'd still have to choose which traditionally popular religion to go with, some of which have no gods or many gods.
    I can't say "god doesn't exist." I can say "I don't see anything that suggests he does."

    When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by Cjd005, posted 02-14-2008 3:56 PM Cjd005 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 134 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2008 8:15 PM Rahvin has not replied
     Message 137 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-14-2008 9:31 PM Rahvin has not replied

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6769
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 134 of 164 (455977)
    02-14-2008 8:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 133 by Rahvin
    02-14-2008 4:39 PM


    Re-Seeing
    Hi Rahvin,
    Rahvin writes:
    I can't say "god doesn't exist." I can say "I don't see anything that suggests he does."
    That is probably because you are spiritually blind. I hope the condition doesn't last too long.
    God Bless,

    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 02-14-2008 4:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

      
    Crooked to what standard
    Member (Idle past 5845 days)
    Posts: 109
    From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
    Joined: 01-31-2008


    Message 135 of 164 (455984)
    02-14-2008 9:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 126 by teen4christ
    02-14-2008 3:20 PM


    teen4christ writes:
    Mendel was talking about inheritence from one generation to the next. Going back to the analogy of walking, Mendel was talking about standing still. He didn't know that DNA existed or that DNA mutation was inevitable. In other words, he didn't know that you could walk. All he knew was that if you stood still in one position at 12 o'clock, at 12:01 you'd still be at that position. He didn't know that you will inevitably start walking.
    Okay, so let's say that you have to start walking. You start at point A. You have no idea how you got to point A, but you did. You can't see, but you know that you have to start walking. So, you walk in a direction--right off of a cliff.
    Now there are millions of blind people at point A (a mountain peak, by the way). They all start walking. Their goal is to reach point B. However, the only way to point B is a narrow ridge between two steep cliffs.
    So they all walk. Let's say 100,000,000 start. Just randomly walking, only about fifty would make it to point B. The others died by simply walking off the cliff, or they were pushed off by others.
    So these fifty people rest at point B and start reproducing. While reproducing, some wander away--off cliffs. Others might reach their new destination, point C, but have no others to reproduce with, so they'll not contribute to the population at point C.
    And soon, another reaches point C. Population increases there.
    And so on and so on until you reach point n. Here, the only way to get to point n+1, you need to build a bridge across the chasm that separates you two. There is no ridge. There, at point n+1 you have the platypus (which has no home on the evolutionary tree) or the bombardier beetle.
    WAIT AND READ ON
    Before you hit the reply button hear me out. Before you say "PRATT!", hear me out.
    I know you think I'm going to say 'Ha, the beetle couldn't have evolved', know that I did my research. I found a website, Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design, that explains how the beetle could have evolved.
    However, since you evolutionists like to use the argument "We've never seen God, therefore He can't exist", I'll use something along the same lines.
    Muscles are moved around slightly....
    When have we ever observed a change (mutation) where 'muscles move around slightly'? The only good mutation anybody's ever given is bacteria developing a resistance to a phage.
    When has a mutation moved muscles around, which is a key part in the bombardier beetle's 'evolution'?

    Iesous
    Christos
    H
    Theos
    H
    Uios
    Soter
    Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 126 by teen4christ, posted 02-14-2008 3:20 PM teen4christ has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 138 by Vacate, posted 02-15-2008 1:11 AM Crooked to what standard has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024