Creationists benefit directly from the Theory of Evolution

Thanks theory of evolution. Well, thanks for the creative skills of Mr Darwin anyway.I'm not so fond of the whole "well it's benefited you" approach anyway. It's fallacious.Hitler might cook me dinner but he's still a murdering bastard. Thus my own selfish benefits don't negate the validity of Hitler being a murderer. I suppose we benefit from the investigative and keen minds of scientists despite the ToE. It's likely that the ToE can help indirectly yet still be untrue. Anyway, I'd still be grateful to the scientists anyway.I mean what does this mean anyway? "Hey - you don't believe in evolution yet it helps you"."Hey, you don't believe in God but he lets you live, and provides the air you breathe every day".

What kind of evolution though? Does colon cancer depend on macro-evolution? Does it mean humans are but a recent transitional? I have my doubts.What if the actual biological factors involved are true, but not evolution? For example, speciation could be "evolution" yet creationists aregue speciations within a kind are possible.Does the treatment actually depend on long term, millions of years, cell to critter activity? [qs]This sounds like benefiting from knowledge of derogatory mutations to me.Forcing a mouse to get cancer is just knowledge pertaining to mutations. Okay - it's a big "maybe" that if the ToE wasn't in existence they wouldn't have done this, but is it likely in this dilligent age?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 07:24 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 07:25 AM

1. I am aware that speciation is regarded as evolution from your perspective. Though personally in this instance we aren't working with a beneficial mutation.2. Isn't it possible that infact the three species are sharing derogatory mutations because of a deteriorating world? (Just suggesting some possibilities here, not arguing.)Isn't it just that the particular APC is a common mutational factor in living organisms? Or where you suggesting a common ancestor answers for the shared genes? Or something else? (I'm just interested, if you were just suggesting a possibility thaat's also fine).

1. I think it is a matter of perspective according to the fourth dimension. One cannot infer absolutely, that micro=macro, when it could also be that micro = available information.So far, mutations seem to have shown derogatory characteristics but not beneficial.Although APC is a gene, MUST it be that a common ancestor caused this? Do not we also share genes in many instances? I suppose hearts in organisms could shoe common ancestry, or a common designer.

It seems the APC is a tumor suppressor gene. Why it's simply easy to see why a designer would put it in there now isn't it? Mutations are the problem, as that's is what causes the cancer. Nobody has divulged as to what has the gene. I only know of what has been mentioned. So any conclusions about common ancestry can't be made by me.What proves the gene is shared and not simply a part of each organism?

It would be illogical to assume the only organisms on the planet with the gene are those mentioned in the OP, which I read just fine.I said, "I only know of what has been mentioned".This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 06:24 PM

I guess that I need a list if I want to know as to how this means there must be a common ancestry.If every organism on the planet has it, then does that mean common ancestry? If a few do, how are those species connected pertaining to taxa? Are you saying we evolved from a mouse now?I suppose one could say anything shared in nature = evolution. Come on Paul, atleast convince me rather than dodging everything I say.

So it's important? In what species? In everyone? In every species? Let's pretend I don't know for a moment. Sheesh, I'm not going to know am I? I'm not a scientist, nor are my interests biology. That's fair enough, I was just believing what I was reading. Isn't it leading to the same thing as supressing it though? Even if unintentionally from our point of view, but not a designers? It seems it's important in a "wide variety" of things. Why wouldn't the designer add it again?