But it takes so long to evolve

How does millions of years solve problems evolutionarily?Say you have travelled as an ape-man to yonder place with no trees. Even if you migrate to hostile and barren places, no change can surely happen - evolutionarily, which is needed, within those migration periods. If you move completely - and your journey takes fifty years, and you are now in an open region with the beasts that tare the flesh, you cannot evolve untill millions of years have passed. Wouldn't you have surely had to go back to the trees while waiting to evolve?Surely it takes too long to evolve. Forced changes will take ages, you will be extinct by then.What if a species needs wings tomorrow, and the change will take place in M.O.Y only. Won't that species simply go extinct?I want no off-topic rhetoric!

Yes, and that adaptation will take millions of years.If I am forced to live in the trees with my family - we are not going to survive if we need monkey atributes.Don't get me wrong, I already know the explanations of natural selection. But I want to bring this topic forward so people will focus on just how important the point is. What would INDUCE adaptations? I thought mutations were random!?! Surely you COULD have open-territory traits that come to pass while living in trees - and those traits are culled as they are useless in trees. - I thought that would be a better explanation - ho hum. I said "waiting in a tree" to make the point perfectly and sarcastically understood - understood?

Mark: Okay fair enough. I guess new selective pressures would explain it somewhat. So then - it is explained by means of natural selection for you. The ground dwellers would survive - and keep their specialist ground - dwelling. I fail to see how that would change them morphologically though.Jar says: Paul says: Coragyps says: Gary says: So does it just happen? Is it a gradual change? Do we die out? Or do we evolve in a hundred years?Coragyps said that 99% of species ever to exist are extinct. I guess this would explain that my argument is atleast somewhat true?

So then we did die out afterall.

Shucks folk - no apology needed. I'm glad we agree - I thought I was going nuts again. Yes - that's it, so natural selection would get rid of the ground-dweller trait if they were still tree dwelling - though perhaps not altogether. Maybe the ground-dwelling trait could already be in the gene pool of that species, from the past. Now I'm just trying to confuse myself!

I don't think I do. I am guessing an induced trait = natural selection, or taking a trait available. And random mutations are how the morphological changes happen. I would have to study more to go further as I get confused when we add the mechanism of mutation. I can understand that traits available in the gene pool already can be used = natural selection - I should really be trying to find that topic - and ask over there. Your welcome. I try my best to understand evolution. It is a bit complex. Only recently have I really tried to familiarize myself with some of the biological basics. In the past I just kind of tried to show evidence of a young earth and dealt with trying to debate geological stuff.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2004]

Wow - a christian Jar? But weren't you talking against christianity of late? - Maybe I confused you with someone else. I guess you can join Truthlover and be put under "christian evo". How then do you justify being a chimp with your faith?

Yes - thanks Loudmouth, I haven't really forgotten about NS, and random mutations, but "induced trait" I am not familiar with. Good analogy though. It's when I am told names or phrases I don't understand = confusion. "Induced" - never heard of that one till now.

Many horrible things have been done in the name of Rome. Does that mean Romans today should be punished for it?You can do anything in the name of christianity or Christ but that doesn't mean it is christianity or Christ - doing it. And dare I say - the ugly. So I will remain a chump not a chimp.

I don't know many christians. Immediately, I can only think of me. Everybody I know is atheist or agnostic.I agree nobody should be punished for it.As far as I am concerned the history of christianity is the history of those who have been succesful in following Christ's teachings. So - the people who have correctly lived and adhered to the teachings. Are we talking of those people?If you are talking about people who have failed to follow Christ's teachings - then I would disagree that they were christians.BTW. Did you like The magician's nephew?

I do not agree that Hitler was a christian. You can't just say - "I am a christian", without changing. You must be born again, and show the change - Like Saul who became Paul. It is very offensive to me if you associate a nazi with Christ.The slaughter of the Jews goes against everything - yes, EVERYTHING Christ said. Christ himself is Jewish, and the nazis might have said they were christian, but they must meet the definition. Go to http://www.dictionary.com and type in "christian". I kid you not, you will only find the parameters involved.Here they are:- Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
- Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
- Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
- Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
- Showing a loving concern for others; humane.So you see - I will not accept those who merely say "I am christian".Even the hypocrits of Jesus's day touted themselves as holy and just, and what did Christ say about them?Ps. With your logic, according to you - Hitler is in heaven because you say he was a "christian". That means you must also believe he was saved and resides in paradise. This - together with your belief in evolution, leaves me highly dubious about your claimed christianity. You can however, agree with me now, that Christ's teachings differ from this illogic.Christ said that the hypocrits father was "satan". He also said many who will claim to know him he will say to, "I never knew you". Do you agree with this? - If you do, then you will have to see the logic that nazi slaughterers of innocent Jews were not christian. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with this scripture, which will leave me even more dubious as to your true position.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2004]

Only Christ truly knows. All I know is that you have to meet Christ's teachings. If I say I am a footballer and I've only ever played snooker, am I a footballer?If Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews, and Christ says, "Love you enemy and neighbour" do you think there is an inconsistency? Read this If you think I am just saying this for "true scotsman". I in all honesty - think Loudmouth is more christian than nazi Jew killers ever were.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2004]

BTW, I have totally broken my own rule in message 1. This is off-topic. So now, I have no right to complain.......Are you guys getting it yet?

I am not judging him, I just think he was not a christian. The last time I checked there is a definite difference between judging someone and agreeing/disagreeing on what that person was. I could ofcourse be wrong, but it is irrelevant as I am not judging him anyway.What I am saying is that killing millions of people does NOT meet the definition of christian.

Even the Highpriests are the shewbread. Do not heed the newbie, there is ofcourse a major difference between stealing a loaf of bread to fill an empty belly, and murdering 3 million jews. Wow, that's probably the most silly statement I've heard for a while.If I lie to my spouse saying, "No I didn't clean the bathroom" to humble myself, then I am equal to a murderer??? Logic exits via the wormhole! I think she mixes the source. You see, you can do a small bad thing or a big bad thing, she is right about the source being both bad but that doesn't make the deeds equal.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-24-2004 08:39 AM