Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

then my only argument can be:1: its still tentative. were missing variables.and2: without the DNA of the past, the DNA of the present can only be a guide to what the past DNA may have looked like, until those variables are worked out.which means no conclusion. yet.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

ill agree.but it also means it should not rule out the possibilities of man being the start of man, and apes a evolution off that start.just because man initially is less complicated in by whats "apparent" doesn't mean it didn't have other traits that might be more valuable.especcially considering environment.weather is getting very bad here tornado warnings and such. if i miss a reply im hiding in a closet =)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if dogs came form wolves, why are there still wolves? >an ape is an ape. a man a man. if we share the same tree, at one point the starting point (which can either be called man or ape, depending on how you pursue the tree)was not either current man, nor current ape. it was the first man. (or the first ape, if thats how you want to look at it.)whatever your looking for in the fossil records, it would have attributes that would allow it to evolve either direction. and Lucy seems to hold those traits in current data.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

excellentthat was the study and points i was trying to address.thanks razd

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

well saidI'm just pointing out that these behavior choices are a form of selective breeding, that can change the entire form quite quickly.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

wow..yeah i do see. cool i always figured inbreeding would just lead to ..extinction/idiocracy, but as you point out, over time, the variation would be enough that the slowly cancelled effects wouldn't be near as important in latter times as it is in the earlier, but that in the earlier a species could still survive and eventually be quite diverse.cool thats just cool i did interpret that right? right?if yes, then in effect, one man, and one woman, could become nations of men and wemon.Edited by tesla, : last sentence added.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

why not? i mean, if a Chinese man has a child with a Irish woman, the child is quite diverse isn't it?and a black man and white woman, isn't the child more diverse?and over time, wouldn't the diversity expand?isn't that the whole thesis of evolution, the changes and diversity over time? well right about the according to Genesis.but in theory, if a man and woman had 6 children, and the children and mother and father all had more children, some would be defective, some would be "about" normal. then the cousins mate, and the diversity grows, until the tree is far enough down the genetics work.like, if i trace my family tree father side..i can find a common ancestor on my mothers side, but there so many generations removed, its irrelevant.whats your thoughts on this theory?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

by the data I've viewed in the world as a whole, it would appear to me your conclusions are missing a variable in the original thesis of the balance.perhaps the mutations can work for or against the other variables.for me, your conclusions i cannot accept at heart, something is missing.ill have to conclude no conclusion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

life is to diverse. and evolution isn't supported.there's tons of breeds of dogs, and apparently one initial start.if only one man and one woman were alive, via inbreeding, its logical to me that man would survive. and eventually find diversity through evolution by exposure to different chemicals and minerals in different environments, as environments change.overall, looking at evolution, there's many different things that can cause mutation. and to believe something would mutate only one way just doesn't seem logical.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

unless the environment is understood, i cannot accept that absolutely.too many possible variables.however, it is more probable that the first man, and first woman, did not have identical DNA.but with identical DNA's you may be on to some truth. and i believe it should be further explored.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

thats just a theory.a guess is still a guess. with no conclusion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

not really. the start is not understood. evolution only is scrutinizing points in between.for instance, on the molecular level, if the conditions were right, its possible in theory that radiation and other forces working with a specific DNA code could have activated a previously inactive part of the DNA code, and prompt coding. you could argue, the initial DNA would be the start, but since the product could be so drastically different from the activation, it could be a whole new species,with not much in common with the initial DNA, including the inability to reproduce with the previous DNA form.there's a new theory.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

ok its a guess then. but i have no tools time or finances to run any tests to allow it to become theory.its a good guess, since evolution has so far ignored the "start" and only look at the in between.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides