I think, unfortunately that evolutionists, are still our brethren, and somehow, someway still have a chance to SMARTEN UP, and stop believeing in luck and CHANCE as their modus operandi to change.
How else do we explain the difference in divergence between exons and introns?
I think all men are equal and that you evolutionists are not a different branch or a higher species or HIGHER KIND, nor SUPERIOR. That kind of arrogance or PRIDE leads to mistrust, jealousy, hatred, genocides, killing and war. Theres enough of that already.
It is the creationists who constantly claim that they are a special creation, separate from the rest of the species seen on Earth. The Old Testament is filled with references to the "chosen people". I think you are projecting a bit.
It is evolutionists who say that all species are equally evolved.
It according to your theory is purely at random, via non living random mutations. Mutations are not alive and selecting, neither is the environment a living selector and a living God.
Competition between living organisms for limited resources is what produces selection. Also, I don't see why a deity has to be involved in the process. Can you explain that? Do you reject the theory of gravity because the theory does not have God pushing objects around?
No species is stagnant in your theory, they are all supposed to be changing as we speak even though you say a believer must wait billions of years to see the change.
You can see change in mouse genomes over the last 50 years:
You only have to have one generation to see mutations appear in offspring. Scientists have sequenced parents' genomes and the genomes of their offspring and can find around 50 mutations per person per generation. You can deny reality all you want, but random mutations are real.
So how in heaven or hell are they all equal just because you write that word phrase to cover up your posteriors, cause you know evolution is racist and promotes the idea of one evolved species or kind being superior to another, or unequal to another species. Your lingo is so convoluted because all you have is contradictory words and contradictory facts, and contradictory 'double speak'
How in heaven or hell does evolution claim one branch is superior to another just because you say so?
Taq, please be consistent, your evolutionists said that all animals have evolved equally, and yet you say there is a difference between chimps and humans. This inferring that your magic mutations caused a branching from chimp lineage to a new branch called humans.
I am saying that species can be different and still be equal. It is only your racist biases that make you think that differences require one to be superior to the other.
So how do we talk about those differences when terms like more and less don't work because everything is equally evolved?
The scientific term is more or less derived, or in the opposite direction, more or less primitive.
"In phylogenetics, a primitive (or ancestral) character, trait, or feature of a lineage or taxon is one that is inherited from the common ancestor of a clade (or clade group) and has undergone little change since. Conversely, a trait that appears within the clade group (that is, is present in any subgroup within the clade but not all) is called advanced or derived. A clade is a group in which all members have the same common ancestor." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_(phylogenetics)
We say they are equally evolved because evolution does not require all lineages to change at the same rate. Preservation of previous adaptations is just as much evolution as the evolution of new adaptations.
Pressie, by being semantic, you think you can cover up inequality with equality.
Your entire argument is semantics. You are trying to redefine evolution into something it is not.
Thats as double speak and evasive as double speak and evasive gets. We are talking about, the branching out of evolution into new kinds or species, rather than talking about the branching out NOW at this time. EQUAL TIME is NOT EQUAL BRANCHING. Branching out is a fundamental belief system of evolution.
Branching out does not make something any more or any less evolved. Evolution can produce unbranched lineages and branched lineages. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires evolution to produce a set number of branches.
Your fellow not so bright evolutionists said, humans are not branching out, and they are all the same....
We said that all modern humans belong to a single species, and there are not human populations that are diverging from one another at this time. Why is that a big deal?
Equal evolution, is just a phrase you just made up or your fellow congregationists made up to avoid admitting evolution teaches branching out and racism.
The only one teaching racism is you. You are the only one who is saying that someone different from you is inferior to you.
When you say, "Evolution does not require all to change at the same rate". ... thats more double speak,
The actual theory states that not all lineages need to experience the same rate of morphological change. Perhaps you should learn what the actual theory states before lecturing us on it.
thats more double speak, but at least you refer to the evolutionary belief system that species branch out, yet then try to cover up your diversitifcation theory by using the word equal, as if species are equal at any given moment in time.
How are they unequal? The theory states that all descendants are equidistant from their common ancestor. How is that not equal?
Using equality as a slithering word manipulation to cover up your branching racism doctrine is hardly honorable.
The only racism we see is your racism, where you declare that anyone different from you is inferior to you.
Davidjay isn't describing it correctly for one thing. It isn't because evolution says branches evolve since those would just be cousins, it's because of the idea that one species, or race, evolved FROM another, that people deduced that one race was superior to another.
First, the theory of evolution does not say that one living species evolved from another living species.
Second, I don't see why evolving from one species would make the new species superior to the ancestral species in terms of racism.
When people misrepresent a theory it isn't the fault of the theory. Just because racists can twist and misrepresent evolution does not make the theory of evolution racist.
The fossil record makes the same kind of mistake. It supposedly shows races or varieties in higher layers as having evolved FROM those in lower.
Except that no such thing is done. No fossil is assumed to be a direct ancestor of any living species.
Re: .Evolutionists say one living thing did NOT evolve from another
This only because I caught them in their racist doctrine, and they want to backtrack and use double speak to evade their guilt. But what do they do, they deny ther basic premise of one living species evolving into another.
The only racist doctrine in this thread is the one you believe in. You think that anyone different from you is inferior to you. The theory of evolution makes no such statement.
They deny apes turned into humans, they deny that supposedly fish turned into birds, and birds into mamals or other living things. They deny their theory, they deny their religion, because the.y know they have been found out and found quilty of supporting a racist theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. We have evidence that species share a common ancestor. You are the only one saying that this makes other species inferior to humans. The theory says no such thing.
Re: .Evolutionists say one living thing did NOT evolve from another
Taq, evolution says, our common ancestor is a monkey or a chimp.
I say that our common ancestor was a primate, and we are still primates.
How is that racist?
Our common ancestor is not our grandparent who is an ape, and we in a hoigherr BRANCH.
Stop right there. You said that we are not talking about time. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much time there has been since the common ancestor. One or two generations is the same as a million generations. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID!!!
Therefore, if it isn't racist to say that you and your cousins share a common ancestor that you branched out from, then it also isn't racist to say that all humans branched out from a common ancestral population, or that all primates (including humans) branched out from a common ancestor.
Our grandparents were not a different species, our real grandparents were humans just like us
Black people and white people are not different species.