Summations Only

quote:

---

Also, land to water mammals (and water to land) is a big jump to make for Creationists (myself included). The amount of changes involved. I'm not sure what the TOE teaches on such transitions or if the Theory states that happend or happens.

---

The Theory of Evolution only says that we all descended from common ancestors.The changes in some land mammals evolving into sea animals are deducted from verifiable, empirical evidence. It didn't have to happen, but it did.I think your main concern would be humans. Something about humans being mammals. Just like all the other mammals. Maybe that is something you don't want to accept, because you want to believe that you are special?

intellenPlease, if you comment on here please make sure that your comment makes some sense and that you don't misrepresent what is said. Please also don't tell untruths. You are dealing with quite a few intelligent people here.Also, please ensure that your comments are on topic. A lot of us are here to learn something on the subject from more knowledgable people.Nobody has ever claimed that a dog "got" anything like "webbed feet". You either set up a straw man of the Theory of Evolution or you deliberately told untruths. Both of these are frowned upon.

quote:

---

I'm trying to keep beliefs out of it, sorry Pressie.
  —Chuck77

---

No, Chuck, the moment you bring the word "kind" into the conversation, you bring your beliefs into it. The word "kind" is not a scientific term.

I more or less agree with dwise1 here. To me your statement is not only nonsensical, it is a misrepresentation of everything that was discussed here.Your quote:

quote:

---

PLEASE, remember that: random mutation will not kick in IF there is no new ecological challenges. That is the post of RAZD and caffeine.
  —intellen

---

Nobody has said that at all in this thread.The message on this subject I got from the knowledgable people participating here is that: random mutations will happen at reproduction (this includes some stages of development in the womb), regardless whether there are ecological challenges or not.Your evaluation of what was said so far is pretty silly.Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few sentences.Edited by Pressie, : Changed more sentencesEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi guysThanks for your patience in explaining so many things on here. I really learned a lot. It will take me quite a few weeks to digest all this new information (to me).Multiple allelles explained in a way that is easily understandable. So simple when you think about it. It all makes sense. What a wonderful world.However, I know it must be very frustrating to convey and try to explain something about our world to somebody with the mentality of a loaf of bread.Be assured that not all of us are like that and really appreciate all the knowledge passed on so freely here!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Please stop telling untruths. You’ve even been given examples of populations that evolved right in front of our very own eyes. The fact that you just ignore it says a lot about your mentality. What you say is of no interest at all. You’ve been saying a lot of things that are demonstratably untrue. It’s what you can demonstrate that counts. Geographical isolation of a part or parts of the population is one of the reasons speciation occurs. You know, those webbed feet developed in that population of dogs in Labrador, not under Yorkshire terriers... Evolution doesn’t kick in. It happens continuously. It is a different story, because evolution doesn’t kick in. No, individuals are born with genes for webbed feet. If the circumstances favour individuals with webbed feet, the genes for webbed feet will be spread in the population by reproduction. That’s random mutation coupled with natural selection. It has been explained nicely. Actually, no. Those dogs are a wonderful illustration of how evolution works. The fact that you don’t know what evolution is, only makes you wrong about it.

If the boot fits, put it on.Where I come from, your type of language is frowned upon in civilised and educated circles.

Actually, no. I live in one of the most beautiful countries in the word. I live in a country where just a little bit of education ensures a very comfortable life.I've got more than enough to eat, I own a house with big garden and swimming pool, two cars paid off, holidays at the coast in my own holiday home where I can fish the ocean from my veranda, etc.If you call that hell, I prefer living in hell. {AHEM!!! - Getting dragged down to his level, are we? - STOP IT! - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Big red print.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.

You see, intell, you can't argue against evolution if you don't even know what it is. You trying to do it is like a loaf of bread trying to argue against the theory of special relativity. You just can't even try to argue agains evolution, because you don't even know what it is. Actually, (PNP is a new one to me) random mutations have been demonstrated right in front of our eyes. In the lab. And in the field. Natural selection ensured the development of new species, right in front of our eyes. In the lab. And in the field. You see, here you are telling untruths again. Mutations happened in the DNA, not in dirt. No scientist has ever said that mutations happen in dirt. DNA and mutations have been tested numerous times in a variety of labs all over the world since the 1920's. The fact that you don't even know about one of those tests, testifies that you are not in a position to even try and argue against evolution. You don't. You demonstrated that numerous times in this thread. So, the cell theory, the atom theory, the theory of plate tectonics and all those other scientific theories have "messed in it's naturalistic methodology"? Why do you want anyone to think that nuclear power stations work on ghost power? It's funny that all those hundreds of thousands of biologists, all over the world, who know something about the theory of evolution because they study biology every day, disagree with you.And then all those other hundreds of thousands of other relevant natural scientists, like paleontologists, also disagree with you.

Actually, random mutation is one of the mechanisms. We’ve got a few others as well, you know. It’s not hard to find out. You can even some other mechanisms on the internet. Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution Oh, is mutation a process? Why do you think it is a process? Do you consider radioactive decay a process? No, nature doesn’t make it. In nature phenomena occur. There’s no evidence for any form of intelligence involved in any form of mutations. Say that to those nylon-eating bacteria. OK Say that to those nylon-eating bacteria. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm The altered part of the DNA (resulting from a frame shift mutation) which provides the coding for digestion of nylon is even shown. Remember to look at those references! From the reference: I’ve given you my answer. You know, it’s not very difficult to get them. This research is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You can look it up if you’re interested and stop just reading creationist pseudo-science.Now, if you think that mutation was caused by intelligence, please provide testable evidence for that intelligence. Mark the word: test.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Sorry admin, I’ll try to fix mine. I’ll cover the points made by intellen What you call adaption is evolution. Any change in heritable characteristics from one biological population to another is evolution. From Wiki Evolution - Wikipedia Then, another source: Lots of them. For example. Message 111, EvC Forum: How do "novel" features evolve? Demonstratably false as has been pointed out right in this threads. Yet you keep repeating it. No, I specifically referred to dogs with webbed feet in Labrador (or somewhere in Canada) and dogs without webbed feet in Yorkshire. Named after the areas. Where did I mention the Galapagos Islands? Evolution is a continuous process in all living organisms. It doesn’t start. It's been happening from before the "population moved".I think I’ve covered the rest.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Then the next one. Untrue. A book called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859 mentions natural selection as an important mechanism of evolution.Genes have only been included in the theory since the 1920's.Your first sentence is thus wrong. Please fix it before we can start rolling. I've been looking at the thread, and I can't see where anyone said that. Could you refer to any post stating that, except for yourself?How can we start rolling if your first sentence is inaccurate?Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few sentences

Thanks Admin!

Hi RAZDAfter we get a few basic answers from the local creationists, could we (I actually mean people like you and some others here), discuss what was mentioned by Admin (the statement from creos that errors can't produce advantages, or something like that).It also fits in with the thread; novel features.The words are well defined in any dictionary; it seems as if creos have changed the meaning of the words "novel" and "feature" to read something like "molecules to man" or "dirt to man".Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Changed whole postEdited by Pressie, : Changed last paragraphEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Changed whole answer