Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

first point: evolution is a true and ongoing observation, and a universe created works as designed by the designer.second point: evolution does not prove the universe wasn't designed to operate that way by God.last point:the dog and man evolutionary timetables are probably wrong.proof: a study of foxes discovered that selecting and breeding by flight distance caused changes in color and attitude in a much much shorter time than originally thought. (wish i had a link to the study)a scientist had observed dogs at a garbage dump, and noticed some had greater flight distances than others. the initial start of the dog is believed to be the wolf. which is smarter and stronger than a dog. the fox study shows that apparently, if wolves had discovered human leftovers ina consistent place (such as a dump) that the wolves of greater flight distance would leave and not return, but the wolves of lesser flight distance would return. and that if the wolves with a lesser flight distance were to constantly breed could change quite drastically, quite quickly, to dog.by this observation it is apparent that dog is a lesser form of the wolf, because it chose to scavenge instead of hunt. wolves in the natural environment are smarter and stronger because they choose to hunt.final thoughts: not sure of fossil records, but i wonder if its possible that apes are a lesser form of man, and not man a greater form of the ape.evolution isnt one of my strong points, but i wish i had a link to the fox study.

---

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

its relevant by the topic initially posted, which "seemed" to point absolutely the timetables of dog or man evolution, which by the fox study show that the power of choice can either slow down or speed up evolutions of living things.it also explains my belief on the relevance of that choice as stated by those who believe in creation as opposed to "chance" existence.

---

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

ok, here is what im saying:if dogs are a lesser form of wolf by way of evolution,why isn't it possible then, for apes to be a devolution in the "man" family tree?here is the argument: from studying even recent evolution of modern man, man has apparently been getting taller in its evolution, so the earlier man could quite logically be much smaller. or the traits between the male and female of the genus be more diverse. biblical account of woman coming from the rib of man suggests that woman would be much smaller , if you look at it scientifically , a statement from the bible of course.here is the data I've collected, but it only forms more questions for me than answers. but I'm not very good at evolution of course.here is the data that opens the debate inside me: and: and: there are tons of different ideas, and huge arguments from creationists and evolutionists, and disagreement within both parties within themselves since no conclusion is yet available.it would appear to me, that apes are more likely a devolution of man from this data.earlier skulls of earlier genus that were found are not complete enough for me to draw a conclusion, and i cant relate the fragments as a part of the "man" tree.

---

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

im not talking about natural earth disasters. im looking at evolution biologically and alone.devolution:like humming bird species, some earlier forms in its genus went extinct by changes in its environment, but the ones who evolved with the changes survived (evolved into a higher form via selection in mating habits) the ones who didn't evolve with the changes went extinct (evolved into a lesser form (such as shorter beak, and couldn't reach nectar in longer flowers, when reachable nectars went extinct)so devolution , evolving into lesser form, is what i mean by the word, and evolution, describes both evolving to a greater intelligence and form, and the evolving into lesser intelligence and form, which would lead to extinction if the biological evolving was to lose the dependency that the evolved form evolved to survive on.for instance, a mutt(dog) to be left in the wild would die if there's nothing to scavenge, and its form not suited to hunting the complex environment.smarter men, may suffer from this, if global changes were to kill technology, and not enough resources are available for the amount of men to find what they need in the natural order. (deer etc.)so in effect, I'm only saying what is plainly evident: that life can evolve into lesser forms than its original state by choice of mating: stupid men continual mating with stupid women = stupider man. smarter men, mating with smarter women (or greater gene pool) =smarter and more sound man or woman.the same goes for size an strength, and even biological immunities, tall men and women : mostly tall men and women, shorter men and women : mostly shorter men and woman. of course there are always discrepancies with DNA from the far past, and can produce things like the werewolf syndrome and pink eyes with hairless white skin.

---

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

ok. thanks for clarifying terminology.lesser form: since apes have lesser intelligence than man, and is not the top of all food chains, i consider man superior to monkeys.what i mean is that a superior form can beget less superior forms than it was initially through evolution.

---

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

good queston. wish i knew the answere.evidence does show less intelligent forms of modern man with "apparently" stone tools well before the "modern" ape.

---

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

exactly. there's not enough evidence in the older studies of where man or ape came from to lead to a conclusion either way. but looking at lucy, i see the potential that it could be a point between both worlds.the ones who choose a more upright and intelligent living pattern to evolve up to man, and those choosing more treelike and scavenging habits evolving to a lesser form.Edited by tesla, : lasser=lesser

---

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

evolution is adaption. adaption can go both up or down as far as intelligence goes, by choice of habits.do you know the chromosomes of "lucy"?if so, id like to see what they resemble, man...ape...or in between.also remember, there is no definitive link yet found to make anything about the relation of ape and man being a definite ascension of the same tree.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

how does chromosomes have anything to do with how evolution and adaption works?your trying to look at 2 objects of similar form then ask why they arnt identical?since when does chromosomes only add or subtract in evolution?explain to me why some people got pink eyes and white hairless skin? why do some people have hair all over their bodies and face? why do some people get cancer and some not?just because chromosomes are different in number, doesn't mean that it cannot have either been added or subtracted only,by way of evolution.it is just as logical that a chromosomes was lost, as a chromosome was added.

---

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

EXACTLY.but does he?you answere me then, is it not just as logical for a chromosome to be deleted via evolution, as it could have been added?do this for me?tell me the difference between dog chromosomes, and wolf?these numbers here seem to say that the racoon dog has less than dog or wolf, but that the wolf is the considered relative, or i completly didnt understand this text. honestly not much of this makes a whole lot of sense to me, but logically, evolution can move up or down by habits.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

oops wasnt talkin to me *whistles and walks off*Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

at what point was man an ape? why isn't it possible that it was man, who became a modern man, and man, who also became apes?you can call a man an ape tho..if you want, some men seem to have very similar ethics.

---

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

i see the relevance now. but the question is still unanswered. proof that a centromere could become active, that was once inactive needs to be researched.if a telomere that was inactive was to become active, it would replicate telomeres and genetic data by theory.if ape and man is related, the common ancestor would be classified as what? man? or ape? because it would be neither, but an in between state in which it has active and inactive genetic data that could potentially go either way.we already know that the current ape did not exist at the time that man did, with the data of stone tools and earlier forms of man. so what at those time, did the apes look like, during this period of evolution?you cant look at the genetic data of Lucy, but you can potentially draw a "potential" DNA pattern by the composition of its bone structure, once enough is known about DNA patterns.it would be a fools errand to take the literal DNA data of current apes, and use it to prove anything conclusive about early man and apes. because early man and apes, didn't look like that.also, compare environments of those times, and of current times, its hard to look at past animals and put them in today's climates, because again, they existed in a different environment. potentially subject to different dangers of disease and storms and earthquakes or lava or oceans, or ocean life. what might look to be a useless trait today, was probably very necessary in the environments of yesterday.on a final note: calling the early form of man , ape, is a silly as calling early dog a cat. IF both ape, and man, came from the same start, the start can be called man, or ape, depending on which tree you are following. i call the initial start, IF both are related, the start of man is man in an early form. and apes are the offspring of ignorance.

---

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

without having a full specimen to talk to, we cannot know which end product the creature is closer to. we don't know its abilities to reason.apes the offspring of ignorance:stupid begets stupid.if the habit of the mind was to do little but eat, sexual activity, tree hanging an clowning, over time , with like minded mateing, the habits would only be enforced.if the habit of agriculture, and higher thought, hunting, and greater work, was to be exercised, and like minded individuals mate, the complexity would become more enforced.stupid+stupid+time=stupidersmart and smart and time = smarter.

---

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

tentatively? or absolute?explain further?

---

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