Quote:

Do I "owe it to myself" to explore this further? Dunno, do I owe it to myself to explore the views of every flat-earther, alien abductee, or reincarnated new-ager? No, I don't think so. I am interested in learning new things but if the odds are stacked against a conspiracy theory (involving thousands of people smarter than myself no less) then I am only willing to put so much effort into it, since the likelihood of it being true is small.



Eh...complacency. I guess I'm not old enough to experience this unfortunate trait. Maybe when the life has been drained out by a dreary day-in-day-out existence. This probably doesn't describe you (I mean the dreary day in day out thing probably doesn't describe you), but for me, the search for truth doesn't just end in what I'm told is true by other people.

The only other substantial claim to the throne of truth is still science, its just creationism. There really is no fundemental difference, except they don't believe that proof of creatures becoming other creatures has to exist just because otherwise scientists have been wrong all along.

But, you obviously don't see it that way. Its obvious that the nut jobs out there, and media enforced expectations have made you completely untrusting of anything having to do with God. I'm sorry to hear that. But, consider this. An amateur like me has managed to provide ample evidence against your theory that can be proved in one simple concise idea: The evidence you have doesn't point to a change between kinds of animals. It just points to a change Within kinds of animals. Anything else is just conjecture, but this is what materialist evolution is based on. Wishful thinking.

You have it your way. The way I see it, your side is the one wearing the foil hats.

Let me just make one simple claim. This won't end it once and for all, but just give me one example of a mutation that improves existing genetics. It only takes one mutation that causes something new to appear in the morphology, etc that wasn't originally within the genetic range (ie if a single celled organism adapts to living in the dark, other members of the exact same species cannot have this same data, and furthermore the creature shouldn't be able to survive in the dark to begin with) as an example. Furthermore, if this new data is created, it cannot kill the creature or reduce fitness, which I think is fair since this is precisely what your theory is based on. We can iron out the details later.

I say this won't end it, because there's a chance you'll refer to one of those improvements like the one in my long post that work within the original genetics (the animal was already able to survive in dark, and scientists proved it could be change to....survive in the dark).

However, at least let's get on the right track. Bible problems and other bunny trails aside, let's get straight to the heart of the problem. If you can produce one truly upward genetic mutation I will concede that materialist evolution is possible, after further research since I've almost been fooled before.


I'm so confident that its a physical impossibility that I will wager all of my beliefs on it. Why not after all when mutations have so many problems to contend with, like natural defense mechanisms, lack of effective range, and the fact that they are random changes to an ordered system.

I used to believe in the same kind of evolution that you do. Not that long ago actually. I just assumed what I was told was true for a while because I didn't think it affected me one way or the other. I'm not saying you're this way, but you're not arguing against some blind Christian here. I've seen everything science has to offer.

However, that belief ended when I tried to find evidence of this kind of evolution. I couldn't, not even from scientists themselves.

We should combine this into one of the other threads we were already speaking about, probably, if you want to participate in this.

"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H. J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331

These are scientists speaking. What are you holding on to here? This guy won the precious nobel prize for his work on mutations. He was celebrated by the same people who still believe this 'upwards' evolution is possible. There's nothing left of this materialist evolution except the lies it started. You said these scientists are smarter than you are. And they couldn't find a good mutation. I want you to find one. Its a challenge. Maybe you can outsmart the unbelievers among your crowd.

I've looked recently and so far some guy who believes in God and creation and evolution all at once (talk about confusion) claims he saw yeast become a capped fungi within his lifetime.

Also, someone said that mutations are good because they allow enzymes (he called them workers, so I assumed he meant enzymes) to either be more or less specialized. Changing these workers isn't going to change an entire creature, and its on such a basic level that it doesn't even compare to what it would take to affect genetics on a more general level. That's just my preliminary point against this, since I'm sure further inspection could bring up numerous other problems with this hypothesis. After all, its made by a person desperately clinging to the last possible hope that his twisted version of what evolution is could be true.

Anyway, it seems the evidence (or lack of evidence) hasn't changed, just scientists have been forced to come up with reasons why these mutations haven't been found. In other words, instead of coming up with this evidence, they try and explain away the lack thereof. Like say, with sickle cell anemia. Sure, its good because if you survive sickle cella anemia you're more likely to survive malaria, but we all know these kinds of mutations, as I've said many times don't change creatures into other creatures. If they do, I'd love to know how. Sounds like true junk science to me.

Sickle cell anemia can lead to the following: leg ulcers, abdominal pain, severe anemia (duh), joint pain, and of course defective (as in bad, or worse off) blood cells. On the far end of the spectrum it can lead to death. Let's get a thousand more mutations like these and pile them into our genes and watch the result. You and your 'true science' can keep believing in this evidence. I can't.

I love how you guys keep saying, "Besides, eventually sickle cell anemia will be thinned out of the population where there is no malaria." If its not bad to begin with, why should it have to thinned out of the population?

But we probably should have kept this in another thread, my bad.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/06/06 06:52.
"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."