Do you believe in evolution?

[Missourian]

I don't think you understand what evolutionists mean when they use the word random.

The mutation is random. For instance, the black walnut tree. Once upon a time a black walnut tree sprouted and it had a mutation that allowed it to excrete a toxic substance. It mated with another black walnut tree and half of their offspring contained this mutant gene. Eventually their ability to eliminate to competition gave them the ability to be the dominant subspecies and the rest of the non-mutant black walnuts died off. Viola!

If you prefer to think God is up there saying, hmmmm...looks like those black walnuts need some help and waves his magic wand...that is your business.

Right, I got that, but you say "it got a mutation that allowed it to excrete a toxic substance" like that is so simple.

That's like saying, "one day a man was born who had a mutation that allowed him to exhaled cyanide".

I think that is a little far-fetched. One day a man (or woman) woke up and figured out how to grow crops instead of just gather them...and things progressed from there.

Natural selection, in my opinion, ensures the survival of the species. Exhaling cyanide wouldn't ensure the survival of human kind...so this person would probably be put to death.

Figured out is far different than mindless random chance mutation.

As to cyanide, you're missing the point. We weren't talking about natural selection, we were talking about mutation.

The point is, the likelihood of the walnut tree, thru random chance, would just happen to stumble across a mutation that was a toxin to other plants is about the same likelihood as a man being born secreting a toxin that would kill other competing males.

Would you imagine that was likely...even given a million, million years?


I would not. That takes far more faith than believing in God.

 

[Missourian]

Think of it this way.

I have logic, reason, and thought but no specific knowledge of chemistry or toxins.

How long do you think it would take me, randomly mixing things together, to concoct a toxin that will kill a white birch but not a black walnut?

But the evolutionists contend that this is all random.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, we can consume more cyanide now than we use to as a species. That has evolved over time. The problem is the chemical is so volatile that the change is very gradual.

 

[KittenKoder]

Think of it this way.

I have logic, reason, and thought but no specific knowledge of chemistry or toxins.

How long do you think it would take me, randomly mixing things together, to concoct a toxin that will kill a white birch but not a black walnut?

But the evolutionists contend that this is all random.

Wait ... what? You haven't learned much about it if you think that. Mutation isn't even random.

 

[Missourian]

Think of it this way.

I have logic, reason, and thought but no specific knowledge of chemistry or toxins.

How long do you think it would take me, randomly mixing things together, to concoct a toxin that will kill a white birch but not a black walnut?

But the evolutionists contend that this is all random.

Wait ... what? You haven't learned much about it if you think that. Mutation isn't even random.

It's right out of the definition of evolution:

"Over many generations, adaptaions occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment."

"Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms."

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

​

 

[KittenKoder]

Think of it this way.

I have logic, reason, and thought but no specific knowledge of chemistry or toxins.

How long do you think it would take me, randomly mixing things together, to concoct a toxin that will kill a white birch but not a black walnut?

But the evolutionists contend that this is all random.

Wait ... what? You haven't learned much about it if you think that. Mutation isn't even random.

It's right out of the definition of evolution:

"Over many generations, adaptaions occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment."

"Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms."

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

​

Perception is everything. The evolutionary science perceives mutation as random, however biological sciences know it is not. Two different sciences, one studies the exact aspects of life, the other studies only the changes. Evolution scientists do not even understand DNA, that's another completely different science, geneticists study that in detail, and thus why many evolution scientists will often refer to a geneticist and a biologist, and a botanist, and a chemist ... etc, etc, etc.. As I said, you are over simplifying something that is extremely complicated, about as complicated and neurology.

 

[Missourian]

I don't think my example is over-simplistic:

Think of it this way.

I have logic, reason, and thought but no specific knowledge of chemistry or toxins.

How long do you think it would take me, randomly mixing things together, to concoct a toxin that will kill a white birch but not a black walnut?

But the evolutionists contend that this is all random.

Unless you're saying these mutations are controlled by something with a far better understanding of chemistry than I have...which is exactly what *I* believe, you'll have to explain it to me.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't think my example is over-simplistic:

Think of it this way.

I have logic, reason, and thought but no specific knowledge of chemistry or toxins.

How long do you think it would take me, randomly mixing things together, to concoct a toxin that will kill a white birch but not a black walnut?

But the evolutionists contend that this is all random.

Unless you're saying these mutations are controlled by something with a far better understanding of chemistry than I have...which is exactly what *I* believe, you'll have to explain it to me.

Wait, you're equating learning with mutation now? Seriously, pick a track and stick to it. You are over simplifying, just thinking that the subject can be equated as A = B ... its so complex that if you were to put it into a mathematical formula you are talking billboards of data.

 

[Missourian]

We lost each other somewhere.

Here is my point:


If you said "Make me a respiratory toxin that affects white birch but not black walnut, here are the natural elements and all their isotopes, get to mixing." even if you gave me a billion years, chances are I couldn't come up with one...and I am a sentient being.

But I am expected to believe that somehow the black walnut developed this toxin thru random mutation.

The evolutionists stipulate it is random.

 

[code1211]

How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.

The most obvious reason would be the time constraints placed on the Week of Creation, which specify days, the time frame of "days" being literal 24 hour periods as specified by Genesis 1:14 and confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11, which is an obvious contradiction of the timeframe of evolution, the Cambrian Explosion alone lasting seventy to eighty million years.

Not so fast there, Bucko. On which "day" was the Earth fixed in orbit around the Sun and how fast was it spinning? Had the Moon collided with the Eath at that point? The rotaions of the planets vary wildly.

Might the Earth have had a slower rotation or none at all? On which "day" was the land and water separated?

More likely than any of these questions, though, is what is the purpose of Genesis? Is it more like a text book or more like a poem? When you read that a guy's Love is like a red, red rose, do you think that he's got some sick affinity for plants or that he is speaking in the metaphorical?

Perhaps, Genesis is intended to define the main charachter of this story and do so in a memorable way.

 

[Missourian]

How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.

The most obvious reason would be the time constraints placed on the Week of Creation, which specify days, the time frame of "days" being literal 24 hour periods as specified by Genesis 1:14 and confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11, which is an obvious contradiction of the timeframe of evolution, the Cambrian Explosion alone lasting seventy to eighty million years.

Not so fast there, Bucko. On which "day" was the Earth fixed in orbit around the Sun and how fast was it spinning? Had the Moon collided with the Eath at that point? The rotaions of the planets vary wildly.

Might the Earth have had a slower rotation or none at all? On which "day" was the land and water separated?

More likely than any of these questions, though, is what is the purpose of Genesis? Is it more like a text book or more like a poem? When you read that a guy's Love is like a red, red rose, do you think that he's got some sick affinity for plants or that he is speaking in the metaphorical?

Perhaps, Genesis is intended to define the main charachter of this story and do so in a memorable way.

It gets worse than that...the sun isn't created until the fourth day.

Genisis 1:16-19

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
​

 

[KittenKoder]

We lost each other somewhere.

Here is my point:


If you said "Make me a respiratory toxin that affects white birch but not black walnut, here are the natural elements and all their isotopes, get to mixing." even if you gave me a billion years, chances are I couldn't come up with one...and I am a sentient being.

But I am expected to believe that somehow the black walnut developed this toxin thru random mutation.

The evolutionists stipulate it is random.

Sorry, when I got into this I assumed you had even a rudimentary understanding of science, my bad. Go back to school or pick up a different book once in awhile.

 

[code1211]

Ok, let's take the Beta Fish, which I think is a Siamese Fighting Fish.

It wouldn't be my first choice, but it will due.

These Beta fish, did they live in an area where oxygen in the water was low, or did the oxygen levels in the water drop over time or did they live close to an area that had low oxygen levels?

I don't know, why do you ask?

The same reason I ask if a giraffe had a complex rete mirabile before it's neck reached a length that would require it, and if so why?

Circulatory system


Giraffes bending down to drink


Modifications to the giraffe's structure have evolved, particularly to the circulatory system. A giraffe's heart, which can weigh up to 10 kg (22 lb) and measure about 60 cm (2 ft) long, must generate approximately double the normal blood pressure for an average large mammal to maintain blood flow to the brain. In the upper neck, a complex pressure-regulation system called the rete mirabile prevents excess blood flow to the brain when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Conversely, the blood vessels in the lower legs are under great pressure (because of the weight of fluid pressing down on them). In other animals such pressure would force the blood out through the capillary walls; giraffes, however, have a very tight sheath of thick skin over their lower limbs which maintains high extravascular pressure in the same way as a pilot's g-suit.

Giraffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Or how Tiger Moths knew bats had sonar:

By emitting high-pitched sounds and listening to the echoes, also known as sonar, microbats locate prey and other nearby objects. This is the process of echolocation, an ability they share with dolphins and whales. Two groups of moths exploit the bats' senses: tiger moths produce ultrasonic signals to warn the bats that the moths are chemically-protected (aposematism) (this was once thought to be the biological equivalent of "radar jamming", but this theory is still unconfirmed); the moths Noctuidae have a hearing organ called a tympanum which responds to an incoming bat signal by causing the moth's flight muscles to twitch erratically, sending the moth into random evasive manoeuvres.

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Or how the North American Black Walnut Tree outside my window managed to concoct a toxin to eliminate it's competition:

The roots, nut husks, and leaves secrete a substance into the soil called juglone that is a respiratory inhibitor to some plants, such as [tomato plants]. A number of other plants (most notably white birch) are also poisoned by juglone, and should not be planted in close proximity to a black walnut.

Juglans nigra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


​

Can these ultra specific characteristics (and these are just three I know of the top of my head) simply be the results of random processes? I think not.

Evolution is not a master designer. It's an immortal monkey beating away at a typewriter.

How many animals have necks as long as the Girraffe? None. The reason is that they died off before they could flourish. Only the girraffe remains due to the accidental developement of the things that make it go.

Same for the moth. Same for the Tree. Without these traits, they are extinct. Just like the millions of other plants and animals that are extinct because they were not selected.

 

[Missourian]

We lost each other somewhere.

Here is my point:


If you said "Make me a respiratory toxin that affects white birch but not black walnut, here are the natural elements and all their isotopes, get to mixing." even if you gave me a billion years, chances are I couldn't come up with one...and I am a sentient being.

But I am expected to believe that somehow the black walnut developed this toxin thru random mutation.

The evolutionists stipulate it is random.

Sorry, when I got into this I assumed you had even a rudimentary understanding of science, my bad. Go back to school or pick up a different book once in awhile.

I don't see where I have shown any scientific ignorance. Sound more like a copout to me.

 

[KittenKoder]

We lost each other somewhere.

Here is my point:


If you said "Make me a respiratory toxin that affects white birch but not black walnut, here are the natural elements and all their isotopes, get to mixing." even if you gave me a billion years, chances are I couldn't come up with one...and I am a sentient being.

But I am expected to believe that somehow the black walnut developed this toxin thru random mutation.

The evolutionists stipulate it is random.

Sorry, when I got into this I assumed you had even a rudimentary understanding of science, my bad. Go back to school or pick up a different book once in awhile.

I don't see where I have shown any scientific ignorance. Sound more like a copout to me.

Either that or you are intentionally being dishonest.

The evidence is, 1) oversimplifying a process of millions of years and treating it's instantaneous. 2) Confusing the ability to learn with biology. 3) Making unrelated connections. These are the tactics of those who don't want to face the truth, not the methods of a learned person.

 

[Missourian]

Evolution is not a master designer. It's an immortal monkey beating away at a typewriter.

How many animals have necks as long as the Girraffe? None. The reason is that they died off before they could flourish. Only the girraffe remains due to the accidental developement of the things that make it go.

Same for the moth. Same for the Tree. Without these traits, they are extinct. Just like the millions of other plants and animals that are extinct because they were not selected.

Those are a pretty specific "accidents". A set of valves to control blood pressure, a toxin that only affects certain plantlife, and ultrasonic communication. Too many coincidences for my taste. That random mutation could develope these traits randomly takes more faith than I can muster.

No matter how long the monkey bangs the typewriter, it will not produce Shakespeare.

Give him a piano and a billion years, he'll never play Bach.

Let him paint until the sun burns out and you won't get a Monet.

And how much more complicated is one blade of grass than Shakespeare or Bach or Monet?

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

God VS Science.There is this thing about the how complicated a watch is, who made the watchmaker? God. Well, let's ask: who made God, then? And who made that creator of God? and so on and so forth. Well, it ends the same way, God IS and always WAS. Funny, perhaps the universe IS, and always was. Perhaps, It doesn't matter either way, just live your life to the fullest, and If there is a GOD, let him/her/it/them worry about the details, and if not, what difference doses it matter, anyway?

 

[Missourian]

Sorry, when I got into this I assumed you had even a rudimentary understanding of science, my bad. Go back to school or pick up a different book once in awhile.

I don't see where I have shown any scientific ignorance. Sound more like a copout to me.

Either that or you are intentionally being dishonest.

The evidence is, 1) oversimplifying a process of millions of years and treating it's instantaneous. 2) Confusing the ability to learn with biology. 3) Making unrelated connections. These are the tactics of those who don't want to face the truth, not the methods of a learned person.

I don't know where you got 2 or 3.

I have stuck to the same example again and again.

The black walnut produces a toxin.

If evolution is correct, it gained that ability thru random mutation.

Given millions of years, I might...maybe...be able to develop a toxin that killed white birch trees but not black walnuts thru trial and error, but not by randomly mixing chemicals and natural substances.

But the evolutionists tell me that's how it happens.

That is not over simplifying.

 

[Care4all]

To me, there is no God Verses Science....there is no verses....

There is nothing in Science that I don't accept if it has been proven or damn near close to proven....I look forward to seeing what all areas of Science has come up with and where they are going next...

I still don't think homo sapiens coming from a form of an ape has been proven yet, there are some things that make you think that it could be the case, but there are other things that still don't fit, such as the abnormal mutation that made our brains enlarge as fast as they did...science can't explain it....at least not yet,

and also the fact that 3 of the 4 animals that supposedly mutated from this ape like animal are primates...monkeys evolving from monkeys basically, other than us, humans....what would make this happen in this manner, why would a primate many millions of years ago, evolve in to 3 other primates and a HUMAN if the human is the true Lord of the Earth...the FITTEST....wouldn't it or shouldn't it be 3 types of humans coming from this ape like creature instead of 3 different types of primates and one human, if human was the stronger genetic makeup of the 4 species?

To take a few paragraphs from the Bible that discusses our creation in less than short story form. and try to say it is Science or it should be taught as science, (Intelligent design or creationism) is just plain silly to me....

And yes there are some, VERY FEW Christians who reject the theories or results of Science or who want Creationism taught in school as a science....but this IS NOT THE MAJORITY of Christians or other religious that believe in one God....NO ONE that I personally know, that are Christians, want such a thing???

Faith and Science is mixing apples with oranges...one is based on facts, the other is based of beliefs...they can not be compared, there is NO VERSES that could or can be made imo.

However, on the philosophical aspect of could Science actually prove my beliefs or disprove my beliefs with all the "what ifs" and discussion around such, if approached with an open mind to speculation, is fun to me.


Care

 

[hipeter924]

You do not believe in Evolution. Evolution is fact...the actual reality. So when you make out evolution is something to believe or not to believe I find it very funny.

You can choose to deny evolution occurs, and thus deny the world exists and that there is genetic mutation, you can also deny that the sky is blue and that the scientific method gave us the capacity to build computers, cars and telephones.

You can indeed deny these things. But in the end people who know that there is evolution are very sane and intelligent people and those who deny evolution are likely to believe in ghosts, tooth fairy's, Santa Claus or the boogie monster under the bed because without natural selection and evolution anything from the tooth fairy to ghosts to the boogie monster can exist.