[Saikou]

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. This debate rages most publicly in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe and elsewhere, often portrayed as part of a culture war.

The level of support for evolution is extremely high within the scientific community and in academia, with 95% of scientists supporting evolution. Support for Abrahamic religions' accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields.

Christian fundamentalists dispute the evidence of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, framing them as reputable science ("creation science"). While the controversy has a long history, today it is mainly over what constitutes good science education, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.

A 2014 Gallup survey reports, "More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising."

The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion, but as the United States National Academy of Sciences states:

Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2...ontroversy

Link to the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate on Creationism vs. Evolution.

If you've seen my signature, you could probably guess my stance on the issue.

I'll go ahead and put an argument or two forward, but I don't want to use up all I have in one shot:

Spoiler: Evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted

Spoiler: Bible verses

Job 40:15-24
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

The entire description given in these verses fit certain types of dinosaurs very well. But we're going to zero in on one particular verse. It's in verse 17 it says, "He moveth his tail like a cedar:".



This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? Before that question can be answered, it must first be determined how big a cedar tree is. We obtained information on this from two different sources.

First, we looked at what the Bible had to say about cedar trees to see if it would give us any clues as to how big the authors of the Bible thought they were. Second, we contacted the university of Arizona and asked them. The results of both inquires appear below.

How big does the Bible say cedar trees are?

Psalms 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon (would this verse make much sense if it were referring to a small or medium sized tree?)

Isaiah 2:13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, [that are] high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

Isaiah 37:24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars…

Ezekiel 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set [it]; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant [it] upon an high mountain and eminent:

Ezekiel 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

Amos 2:9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height [was] like the height of the cedars, and he [was] strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.

There is no question that the authors of the Bible considered cedar trees to be quite large. Some Christians who've tried to compromise with evolutionists have claimed that the verses describing Behemoth are describing a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. But those creatures don't have tails the size of a cedar tree. The only creatures known to us today that had tails as big as a cedar tree were the largest of the known dinosaurs.

Spoiler: Plesiosaur-like creature seen by Yarru tribe in Australia

The Creation ExNihilo Technical Journal featured the following picture on page 345 of Volume 12 (No 3) 1998 issue. Here is what the magazine had to say about this picture:

"There are many stories and legends of dragons, with descriptions fitting dinosaurs, supporting that man and dinosaur did in fact live together (supporting also a young age for the earth). Australian aboriginal folklore abounds with such stories, including references to plesiosaur-like creatures. Elders of the kuku Yalanji aboriginal tribe of Far North Queensland, Australia, relate stories of Yarru (or Yarrba), a creature which used to inhabit rain forest water holes. The painting in Figure 7 depicts a creature with features remarkably similar to a plesiosaur. It even shows an outline of the gastro-intestinal tract, indicating that these animals had been hunted and butchered."

SOURCES:
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-hu...erses.html
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-hu...d-art.html
http://www.creationists.org/living-dinos...osaur.html

[Eclipse]

My stance on this debate is a pretty relaxed one. I believe that it could be both.

I mean, evolution is a pretty awesome piece of work. The main part of it suggests that every once in a while, there's a random mutation - an error in copying the genetic code. If this mutation benefits the organism, it stands to reason that the organism would have a higher chance of living to an older age, reproducing, and passing on the mutated genetic code. Then there's speciation to explain how we get similar species.

That's the main part of evolution. ^^ And it makes perfect sense. There's been tons of scientific evidence to support it. However, most creationists always just pick out that little bit in the theory about humans coming from monkeys and think that that's the entire theory summed up. I, personally, disregard that bit and accept most of the rest.

God created the universe, but it all didn't just *poof* into existence one day... He created the world and humans but neither did they...

Let me give you an example. God gives you water, but it doesn't just magically appear in front of you. It comes through a process: rain.

[Saikou]

My stance on this debate is a pretty relaxed one. I believe that it could be both.

I mean, evolution is a pretty awesome piece of work. The main part of it suggests that every once in a while, there's a random mutation - an error in copying the genetic code. If this mutation benefits the organism, it stands to reason that the organism would have a higher chance of living to an older age, reproducing, and passing on the mutated genetic code. Then there's speciation to explain how we get similar species.

That's the main part of evolution. ^^ And it makes perfect sense. There's been tons of scientific evidence to support it. However, most creationists always just pick out that little bit in the theory about humans coming from monkeys and think that that's the entire theory summed up. I, personally, disregard that bit and accept most of the rest.

God created the universe, but it all didn't just *poof* into existence one day... He created the world and humans but neither did they...

Let me give you an example. God gives you water, but it doesn't just magically appear in front of you. It comes through a process: rain.

Mutations in organisms cannot produce positive changes or create new genetic code; they can only remove genetic code.

Spoiler: Microevolution and Macroevolution

Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by microevolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false.

When Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands, he correctly observed that some finches, which had been separated from other finches of the same species, had acquired distinctive characteristics (unusual beaks or feathers). He correctly concluded that these birds had evolved, in a particular sense of the word. They truly had undergone microevolution.

Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution. Let's see how microevolution works.

Selective Breeding

Imagine that a Boeing 747 full of people crashes safely on an uncharted tropical island. Most of these people have brown eyes, but a few have blue eyes. At the risk of over-simplifying the genetics, this is because brown-eye genes are dominant, and blue-eye genes are recessive. If a child inherits brown-eye genes from one parent, and blue-eye genes from the other parent, then the child will have brown eyes. If a child inherits brown-eye genes from both parents, the child will have brown eyes. The only way for a child to have blue eyes is to inherit blue-eye genes from both parents.

Suppose that the passengers in our illustration aren't rescued for several generations. Suppose further that a blue-eyed leader gains supremacy shortly after the crash and decrees that all children who aren't born with blue eyes will be killed immediately. After several generations, all the people on the island will have blue eyes. No more brown-eyed children will ever be born because the brown-eye gene has been eliminated from the population. This new race of people will probably have other distinguishing characteristics that result from this ruthless selection process because one gene often has several effects, and other genes might be lost in the selection process, too. A new race of people will have evolved through the process of microevolution.

Scrabble Analogy

Now let's consider this analogy. Suppose you have a Scrabble game. You can draw seven letter tiles from it and make a wide variety of English words. But suppose you and your spouse divorce, and the judge rules that all community property must be evenly divided. You get half of the tiles and half of the board. If you happen to get the one Q tile, you will tend to form words like quick, queen, quiet, and acquire whenever you play the game. Your spouse will never be able to form these words. When you die, your property is evenly divided among your four children. Each child gets ¼ of your tiles and ¼ of your half of the board. Each child will be even more limited in the selection of words that can be formed when the child plays the game. Each child will have a different set of possible words that can be formed because each child has a different set of letter tiles. As the number of available tiles decreases, a distinctive set of possible words evolves for each child's game. There comes a point, however, when you just can't take away any more tiles and still be able to make words.

In both examples, particular results become inevitable because of a loss of possible variations. Microevolution can (and does) result in a group of individuals with distinctive characteristics. Dog breeders, pigeon breeders, and horse breeders have all discovered that there is a limit to how many distinctive characteristics they can produce through selective breeding. Once they get rid of all the dominant genes that were preventing the desired recessive genes from surfacing, there is nothing more they can do.

One can breed a race of blue-eyed people by removing all the brown-eye genes from the gene pool. One can't breed a race of blue-haired people, though, because there isn't any blue-hair gene already existing in the population. Acquiring a totally new feature, like blue hair, requires new genes. Since microevolution is the process of losing genes, it cannot produce any new features.

Mutations

Mutations are caused by random changes in genes. Is it possible that a mutation could produce new genes that would create a new species? Let's consider that possibility.

It is possible that somewhere there could be a colony of flying ants. It might happen that the queen of this colony might suffer some genetic accident that damages the gene that causes wings to form. Her offspring would not have any wings, and naturally would not be able to fly.

The inability to fly is certainly not an advantage, so one would not expect that natural selection would cause them to beat the flying ants in the battle for survival. This mutation would be a disadvantage. But inability to fly might not be such a large disadvantage that the non-flying ants could not survive. These non-flying ants might not mate with the flying ants, and so they would be considered to be a new species. This is not evolution in the Darwinian sense because a "higher" (or superior) species has not been created. Quite the opposite. This hypothetical new species of ant is a step backwards, not forwards. It has lost the ability to fly because it has lost a required gene. It now also has some left-over "junk DNA" designed to control the wings it no longer has. This junk DNA no longer serves any purpose.

It could be said that the ant "devolved" because the new species is inferior. Devolution is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Given enough time, and left to themselves, things fall apart. Things don't naturally fall together. So it is possible that flying ants could devolve into ordinary ants because one of the genes needed for flying could be lost or damaged.

For flight-challenged ants to evolve into flying ants, at least one new gene would have to be added. There is no evidence that this happens now, or has ever happened in the past. "Gene-jockey" scientists have transplanted genes to create novel characteristics in laboratory animals, but new beneficial genes don't just appear by magic in a natural process. Genes naturally get worse, not better.

If you write a document, then let someone change some of the letters at random, the document will make less sense, not more sense. If you randomly change op codes in a computer program, the program will not improve. Random mutations do not make things better.

Loss is Not Gain

Scientific studies have shown us that species can lose genetic information either through loss of genes from selective breeding, or from mutation. As a result, the new species has only a subset of previously existing characteristics. The loss of characteristics may make the new species so much inferior to the previous species that it may not be able to survive, and may become extinct. There is abundant evidence that extinction has happened to most of the species that have ever lived.

It is possible, however, that a new species will survive despite its handicap. The new species devolves from a higher life-form to a challenged life-form. Some of the species we see today may not be as capable as their ancestors were, but they are not extinct because they have learned some way to compensate. There are blind fish that live deep in the ocean. Their blindness isn't much of a handicap because there isn't much light down there anyway, so they survive.

It is easy to see how one who doesn't understand the process might think that the cumulative effects of small changes from eons of microevolution could result in macroevolution. But microevolution removes genes from the gene pool. Macroevolution requires adding new genes with special capability. You can't get more of anything by removing some of it.

In the 20th century we have learned many things about genetics, thermodynamics, probability, and information theory that weren't known when Darwin developed his theory. These new discoveries give abundant evidence that lower forms of life can't evolve into higher forms. In the 19th century, Darwin could be excused for thinking that what he saw on the Galapagos Islands could explain how life appeared on Earth. Today there is no excuse.

SOURCE: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm

Spoiler: Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms. For example, Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, seeks to establish a godless cosmos of chance in which the appearance of design in life has occurred by accident, by the incremental accumulation of positive changes in genes. His evidence relating to biochemical genetics, however, consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world.
Thus, the question remains: What do we actually see in the world around us when we use scientific tools of measurement and observation? Do we see this “blind watchmaker” at work in any real-life examples, or do we see the opposite? The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the poverty of evolutionary theory to explain the facts in one well-researched area of biology--that is, the area of human genetics. It will show how the facts unearthed by this research show mutations to be, not a “blind watchmaker,” but more truthfully analogous to a “blind gunman.”
The human mutation problem is bad and getting worse.
Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations. This review will only scratch the surface of the many recent discoveries. Still, the examples cited will illustrate a compelling general principle which extends throughout this expanding field.

What are mutations?

Mutations are defined as random changes in cellular DNA. They change the genetic code for amino acid sequence in proteins, thus introducing biochemical errors of varying degrees of severity. Mutations have been classified as deletions (loss of DNA bases), insertions (gain of DNA bases), and missense or nonsense (substitution of a DNA base).

If the mutations affect germ cells (female ova and male spermatozoa), they will be passed to all the cells of the offspring, and affect future generations. Such mutations are called “germline mutations,” and are the cause of inherited diseases.

Mutations also occur in other populations of body cells and will accumulate throughout a lifetime without being passed to the offspring. These are called “somatic mutations,” and are important in the genesis of cancers and other degenerative disease processes.

What are the real world results of mutations? (examples)

To survey the mutation problem, it will be helpful to consider a few examples of how mutations work their biochemical havoc.

Cholesterol-related mutations

In the cardiovascular system, it has long been recognized that a high circulating cholesterol content in the blood is associated with degeneration and narrowing of large and medium-sized arteries. this process is called “atherosclerosis” and is a leading cause of heart disease. More recently, a genetic biochemical defect causing hereditary high blood levels of cholesterol has been discovered and is know as “familial hypercholesterolemia” (FH).

This disorder has been traced to mutation of a gene coding a transmembrane receptor protein. The gene is on chromosome 19 and has about 45,000 base pairs with 18 exons. Its encoded receptor protein is anchored in the membranes of all body cells, and allows them to capture and take in “packages” of fats and cholesterol (called “low-density” lipoproteins," or LDL) that are manufactured in the liver. The receptor protein has 772 amino acids which form five functional domains.

At least 350 different disease-producing mutations of the cholesterol receptor have been described. These may be classified according to the affected functional domain.



Examples of mutations in the cholesterol-related LDL receptor gene. Shown are the 18 exons of the gene and various combinations of known mutations, classes 1-5. (This illustration is adapted from a more detailed diagram in J.L. Goldstein and M.S. Brown, “Familial Hypercholesterolemia,” in C.R. Scriver , A.L. Beaudet, W.S. Sly, and D. Valle, editors, The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease, 6th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989), p. 1232.)

In the first class of mutation, little or no receptor is synthesized at all. In the second, receptor protein is synthesized, but does not take its proper place in the cell membrane. Third, receptor protein is present in the membrane, but does not link with the LDL packages. Fourth, the receptor protein is unable to stay in the membrane. Fifth, receptor protein is present in the membrane and links with the LDL packages, but does not bring them into the cell. None of these are beneficial.

All body cells need cholesterol for their membranes, so a certain amount is necessary and good. However, defects of this receptor protein result in high blood levels of cholesterol through a feedback loop. When the receptor protein is not working, the cells keep on sending the signals for more cholesterol packages, and the liver complies. In homozygotes, cholesterol levels are three to five times the proper level, while heterozygotes have about twice the proper level. This results in rapid atherosclerosis, sometimes resulting in fatal heart disease in childhood.

Cystic fibrosis mutation

A second example is a common genetic disease, cystic fibrosis (CF). This multisystem disease cripples children and leads to early death. It damages the lungs, digestive organs and, in the male, the vas deferens (spermatic duct). Its differing effects, from mild to severe, are in part due to different types of mutation affecting one key gene.

This biochemical basis is the mutation of a gene coding for a transmembrane protein regulating chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. This gene has 250,000 base pairs and is called the CFTR gene. It codes for a transmembrane protein of 1,480 amino acids. Research on this gene showed a mutation, delta-F508, occurring in most clinical cases of CF. This mutation is a deletion of three nucleotides resulting in loss of phenylalanine residue at position 508 on the peptide chain.

Normal DNA . . . T ATC ATC TTT GGT GTT
Cystic Fibrosis DNA . . . T ATC AT- --T GGT GTT

In addition to this fairly common mutation, over 200 other mutations of this gene have been described. Just a few of these are associated with the more severe forms of the disease, which lead to early death from lung infections. Other mutations or combinations of mutations lead to lesser disease states, like chronic pancreatitis or male infertility, but again, no beneficial results have been observed.

Cancer

As a broad example of disease produced by acquired somatic mutations, let's consider cancer. The link between carcinogenesis and genetic mutation has become much clearer.

Carcinogens (agents causing cancer) also tend to be powerful mutagens (agents producing mutations). The discovery of “oncogenes” and “tumor suppressor genes” has shown how this relationship works. Basically, these genes are concerned with regulation of the cell cycle. The oncogenes drive the process of cell replication forward, while the tumor suppressor genes hold it back. Both are necessary for proper cell function and growth. But mutational damage to components of both systems may produce an uncontrolled growth of cells, which is cancer.

This phenomenon may be compared to a car in which there is damage to the gas pedal, causing it be be stuck “on,” while the brakes are damaged at the same time. These mutations are usually acquired over decades, so cancer is mainly a disease of old age. However, studies have shown that inherited germline mutations of key oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes can predispose persons to development of cancers in childhood.

Examples of this include childhood cancers like retinoblastoma, as well as familial cases of more common cancers (e.g., breast or colon) that have been linked to specific mutant genes (e.g., the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for familial breast cancer, and the APC gene for familial colonic polyps and cancers).

Do mutations have any positive results?

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true.

These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.

Sickle cell anemia

The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection.

Cancerous cellular degeneration

Even more strangely, the process of cancerous cellular degeneration has been vied as a Darwinian form of mutation! Again, this idea fails to hold up under scrutiny. Malignant cells can hardly be considered to be an improvement over their normal counterparts. They are “fitter” only in their replicative activity, but even this is just an exaggerated use of already existing cellular machinery. In many other important ways, they have degenerative features. They show no gain of information, but generally a loss or disorder of functions.

In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

Conclusions

What conclusions may be drawn from these few examples, and countless others like them? First, that the human mutation problem is bad and getting worse. Second, that it is unbalanced by any detectable positive mutations.

To summarize, recent research has revealed literally tens of thousands of different mutations affecting the human genome, with a likelihood of many more yet to be characterized. These have been associated with thousands of diseases affecting every organ and tissue type in the body. The medical descriptions of many forms of inherited disease have a common theme: 80-90% of cases have affected individuals in the family tree, but the remaining cases are sporadic--the result of ever increasing numbers of new mutations. In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.

Mutations behave like a “blind gunman,” a destroyer who shoots his deadly “bullets” randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery.

Instead of a “blind watchmaker,” the mutations behave like a “blind gunman,” a destroyer who shoots deadly “bullets” randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery. Sometimes they kill. Thus, the “blind watchmaker” is an illusion. Worse than that, it is the intellectual and moral equivalent of an idol--an invention of the imagination, to which superhuman powers are falsely ascribed.

Decay and degeneration

This research affirms the reality of the past Biblical curse of decay and degeneration on the world of nature, as stated in both the Old and New Testaments.

It also highlights the grim reality of the future hopelessness of the human race without the saving intervention of God and His Christ. Mutations continue to slowly harm us. Each generation has a slightly more disordered genetic constitution than the preceding one, and no amount of eugenics can reverse this process of decay. Gene therapy may mask the effects, but it will not reverse the underlying degenerative process.

Mutations will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish.

A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish. The problem is like a large book, written with perfect grammar in the beginning, but with random letter substitutions introduced at an ongoing rate. The book will still be readable for some time, but it will eventually lose all sense. Just as the universe is projected to reach a state of maximum entropy, so also the human race is condemned to a degenerative death, not just as individuals, but as a whole.

In conclusion, the Christian hope stands as the only light in the darkness. Only the creative and regenerating work of Christ, as shown in His creation of all things (John 1:3), His miraculous healings, and in His resurrection from the dead, offers humankind true hope for the future.

References

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (W.W. Norton and Co., 1987).
Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry, 3rd edition (W.H. Freeman and Co., 1998).
C. Koch and N. Hoiby, “The Pathogenesis of Cystic Fibrosis,” The Lancet, Volume 341 (1993).
Friedman Cohn, et al., "Idiopathic Chronic Pancreatitis and Mutations of the Cystic Fibrosis Gene," The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 339 (1998).
Robert Weinberg, “Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor Genes,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Volume 44, Number 3 (1994).
Felix Mitelman, "Chromosomes, Genes, and Cancer," CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Volume 44, No. 3 (1994).
J. Defasche and J. Kastelein, “Molecular Epidemiology of Familial Hypercholesterolemia,” The Lancet, Volume 352 (1998).
Robbins, Cotran and Kumar, The Pathologic Basis of Disease, 5th edition (Philadephia: W.R. Saunders Co., 1994).

Author: Dr. David A. Demick, M.D. (pathologist)

SOURCE: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/g...tions.html

[Nil]

I watched the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate but it started getting repetitive. Kind of like every creationist vs. evolutionist argument goes. Bill Nye brings up a point and Ken Ham points out it isn't a perfect method, so the Bible's answer is the best we've got...etc

From what I've gathered in my life, micro-evolution is a fact of life. Whether or not these changes work on a macro scale is up for debate but I wouldn't be surprised if so. Thousands of micro-evolutions -> Macro evolution. It doesn't seem implausible on paper even if we can't observe it. But I'm still going to remain skeptical as I haven't done enough research to form a strong opinion.

[gym]

I see the standpoint of creation, but I know in the end not all the pieces of the puzzle come together.
Evolution just seems most plausible.

[Eclipse]

@Saikou:

Well, the entire theory of evolution and natural selection rests upon the belief that sometimes, random mutations cause changes that benefit the organism. Think about it, it makes sense. Why do people in hotter countries have darker skin?

Speciation is a good example of this. Let's say you have a group of rabbits. A natural occurrence separates the group into two or three different groups. The surroundings for each group are different, and so, after a few hundred years, they've changed, adapted, enough so that they cannot reproduce together any longer.

This has occurred and been observed in the real world.

If something bad comes of mutations, theoretically, that group with the bad genes should die out. Us humans are a strange bunch.

[WuhTehFuh]

I personally believe in the scientific explanation as to why we are here. My only reason for doing so is that there seems to be more evidence in favor of this. If somebody were able to show me undeniable evidence that god created us then I would believe in that, but evolution etc. seems much more plausible to me.

[Saikou]

@Saikou:

Well, the entire theory of evolution and natural selection rests upon the belief that sometimes, random mutations cause changes that benefit the organism. Think about it, it makes sense. Why do people in hotter countries have darker skin?

Speciation is a good example of this. Let's say you have a group of rabbits. A natural occurrence separates the group into two or three different groups. The surroundings for each group are different, and so, after a few hundred years, they've changed, adapted, enough so that they cannot reproduce together any longer.

This has occurred and been observed in the real world.

If something bad comes of mutations, theoretically, that group with the bad genes should die out. Us humans are a strange bunch.

From my previous post:

"Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird."

What you are referring to is microevolution.

Here is more content that I would put in a spoiler, but its formatting is much better on the source page.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml

[cr33pyguy]

My stance on this debate is a pretty relaxed one. I believe that it could be both.

I mean, evolution is a pretty awesome piece of work. The main part of it suggests that every once in a while, there's a random mutation - an error in copying the genetic code. If this mutation benefits the organism, it stands to reason that the organism would have a higher chance of living to an older age, reproducing, and passing on the mutated genetic code. Then there's speciation to explain how we get similar species.

That's the main part of evolution. ^^ And it makes perfect sense. There's been tons of scientific evidence to support it. However, most creationists always just pick out that little bit in the theory about humans coming from monkeys and think that that's the entire theory summed up. I, personally, disregard that bit and accept most of the rest.

God created the universe, but it all didn't just *poof* into existence one day... He created the world and humans but neither did they...

Let me give you an example. God gives you water, but it doesn't just magically appear in front of you. It comes through a process: rain.

Evolution doesn't occur through mutation only though, also through natural selection - when individuals with a certain characteristic survive better than those without. For example if there was a competitive species which ate all the fruits from lower in the tree, or a disease that caused for the lower fruits to die, taller individuals in species would survive, while shorter ones would perish. Over time, as the taller individuals reproduce with other tall ones, the species would grow to be composed increasingly of taller individuals, since those with that characteristic are more likely to survive until a fertile age.

Do comment if anything I said doesn't make sense / I used the incorrect vocabulary.

AKA I'm on the side of evolution on this one.

[Eclipse]

From my previous post:

"Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird."

What you are referring to is microevolution.

Here is more content that I would put in a spoiler, but its formatting is much better on the source page.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml

So I am...

I'm confused. Was that a counter argument? I've said that my opinion is that it's both. Are you aagreeing or disagreeing?