Show me the evidence that points to a creator creating everything as is instead of things evolving over time without first having a belief in a creator.
So again what evidence do you have for creation?
Provide evidence for creation rather then species evolving. Can you do this?
@samy, He requested my opinion on being a creationist, but doesn't want me to talk about creation. I think it's important to help understand that the universe wasn't created from random chance, but by intention. He doesn't seem to understand how it connects to a creationist's viewpoint against evolution. But intention carries all the way through. Evolution is dependent on random chance, but my creationist viewpoint is dependent on intention. Adaptation without random chance is not evolution, because the same species doesn't change into new ones over time. Evolution depends on random mutations to develop new species that are unable to reproduce with their parent species.
Has any pro-evolutionist really thought about the problem of probability in the number of random DNA mutations that are required to develop a new lifeform? It just can't happen.
Has any pro-evolutionist really thought about the problem of probability in the number of random DNA mutations that are required to develop a new lifeform? It just can't happen.
Have you ever had a course in evolution? Or are you not that far in school yet? Or could you go google it or something?
I'm pretty sure you are misinformed on some of the ideas of the theory of evolution.
A study has found that two butterfly species evolved into third. Hybrid speciation is the process wherein hybridization between two different closely related species leads to a distinct phenotype. This phenotype in rare cases it's fitter than that parental lineage, so natural selection may favor this individuals. Eventually, if reproductive isolation is achieved, it may lead to a separate species.
Has any pro-evolutionist really thought about the problem of probability in the number of random DNA mutations that are required to develop a new lifeform? It just can't happen.
Thats why evolution takes time to create a new species. A few mutations at a time over a long period of time means that the species changes slowly, but it still changes.
Hybrid speciation is the process wherein hybridization between two different closely related species leads to a distinct phenotype. This phenotype in rare cases it's fitter than that parental lineage, so natural selection may favor this individuals. Eventually, if reproductive isolation is achieved, it may lead to a separate species.
That's really cool, actually! This would be a kind of thing that's not really randomly creating DNA, but mixing two existing forms. It says the phenotype seperates it from its parent species, but did it say whether the third one could biologically reproduce with the others if it had to? I could totally see this fitting in with theistic evolutionists.
[quote]Has any pro-evolutionist really thought about the problem of probability in the number of random DNA mutations that are required to develop a new lifeform? It just can't happen.
Thats why evolution takes time to create a new species. A few mutations at a time over a long period of time means that the species changes slowly, but it still changes.[/quote]
But it doesn't make sense Moe. First off, Mav said I'm probably misinformed about parts of evolution, so this might be one part. But anyway, what I know is that random DNA mutations are rare, and most that happen are lethal. I also know that DNA only has a small part of it that actually makes the body. So the DNA mutation has to happen in just that small part. That's already a really really low probability of success for just that one mutation. I don't really see how you could believe that happens enough even over long periods of time until so much more new DNA is made that a new species which can't even reproduce with its parent species is born.
But anyway, what I know is that random DNA mutations are rare, and most that happen are lethal.
Most mutations are benign. And as I said when a biological lifeform reproduces that reproduction isn't a perfect copy. Making mutations being as common as reproduction.
Also we have already covered the argument of probability as being moot. We have observed instances of these things happening. We can see evidence that it has happened in the past.
And as I said when a biological lifeform reproduces that reproduction isn't a perfect copy. Making mutations being as common as reproduction.
You know, I let that go the first time cause I didn't want to embarrass you, and maybe someone never explained these things to you. But, they call it "making babies", not "making mutations". Just so you know, reproduction doesn't involve making DNA mutations, it just involves mixing DNA that's already there.
I'll get to the other stuff later, but I just wanted to let you know that.
