Quote:

This is the idea of evolution. And this is also why genetics are not evolution.



This is the last time I'll say this. I never said genetics were evolution. That statement doesn't even make grammatical sense. Evolution affect genetics. There's an important link. You can't say evolution doesn't affect genetics because you can't have a lizard evolve into a bird without some kind of genetic change.


However, its obvious from your posts that you have absolutely NO CLUE what evolution is. You started out citing examples of natural selection, and now you started mixing natural selection with mutations (mutations are in a sense evolution although the idea of evolution encompasses more than that).

Quote:

there are no genetic "manipulations" when we talk about evolution.



There would have to be. If life started out single celled (which evolution asks us to believe), then it didn't have the data for wings, skin, hair or anything else. Something would have had to manipulate the DNA to cause these things to appear. To add to it if you will.

Quote:

evolution is a passive process.



Its impossible for evolution to be a passive process. Otherwise a lizard wouldn't be able to grow wings. Something has to act upon the lizard to cause it to attain a code it didn't have before. Because the only thing we've been able to actually observe naturally are creatures losing codes. That's counterproductive.

Quote:

Thus it cant be denied. Denying it would be like saying the sun doesnt rise every day. Not talking about stellar physics or gravity but just the fact about what happens every days.



Except we can actually observe the sun setting. No one has seen a lizard become a bird. Good luck proving it, especially without a fossil record to back you up.

Again, it sounds to me like you're talking about natural selection. Scientists themselves will admit that evolution (micro evolution) is unobservable. If you're going to insist on saying its fact, give me proof. No more words, just proof. Show me a case where a crab became a beetle. Otherwise you have nothing except your opinion.

Quote:

humans are nothing more then genetic mistakes.



And yet, here we are running our planet. Doesn't that sound more like we were created, if we managed to do the impossible? Because if its strictly genetics, then the weakest ALWAYS die off. No ifs ands or buts.

Quote:

If you put together A and another A and you want a third A as a result this is how reproduction works.
Now once in a while (with the impact of a ton of reasons) A+A is not A anymore but B.



That example is far too simplified. Actually, based on everything you've said, and the actual evidence we're dealing with equations more like this.

AAAABBBBCCCC + AAAABBBBCCCC = AAABBBBCC

That's a bad example too, but its closer to the OBSERVABLE truth. You're jumping quite a gap by saying A+A = B.

Quote:

dog are not just weakened wolfs but a completely redone sub species.



Define a sub species. If a dog isn't its own standalone species then it would have to be derived from a wolf. Dogs are naturally genetically weaker than wolves. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask breeders. All you do to get a dog is breed animals for the specific traits you want. That's still NOT EVOLUTION. You just lose some of the original wolf traits, and slowly but surely you get something less. That's not to say dogs are incomplete, it just means they are lesser versions of a wolf. In the end you haven't created a horse or a bird or a banana. You've just lost some of the original wolf from the code to get something that's much weaker. The dogs aren't starting to sprout wings, they're still restricted by the original code from the wolf. NOTHING NEW IS BEING GAINED HERE. Its not a difficult concept. You're proving a change, but not the change required to meet the requisites of evolution. Its not evolution. Ask a scientist. They'll better be able to illustrate the difference to you.

Can someone who actually believes evolution and knows a thing or two about it set this guy straight? Other than that I'm done. Sorry, guy, but you're either going to have to research for yourself and find out the deal with your 'proof', because I'm not gonna keep pointing out the same thing to you. I really shouldn't even have gone on about it for this long.

Quote:

Though both are possible at the same time without any problem.



God and evolution don't mix. I hate to have to point this out, but if God created us that means he actually exists and that means that the bible will have to at least paint a partial picture of him. It definately doesn't paint a picture of a God that abandoned us shortly after creating us. He's been involved in our lives each and every day from the beginning. The Bible is pretty explicit about when man was created and it wasn't from some bacteria floating in a soup. Translations or not, its hard to mistake the two scenarios.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."