[Arthur Curry]

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

Transposons? Transduction? Recombination?

You're very very wrong.

---

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.

This is mostly in line with Theistic Evolution which is the accepted belief of most Christian churches including Catholics and Mormons.

[Eclipse]

Transposons? Transduction? Recombination?

You're very very wrong.

---

This is mostly in line with Theistic Evolution which is the accepted belief of most Christian churches including Catholics and Mormons.

Interesting... I'm not Christian myself, so I did not know that.

[Saikou]

How the doctrine of macroevolution could achieve such immense power I am unable to understand.

More content that I would put into a spoiler if it weren't so difficult to format: http://www.creationists.org/scientific-f...bible.html

Spoiler: The Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse

Introduction

The relationship that exists between two fish, the Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse, is an example of symbiosis that is rather striking. It is an interesting relationship, because the blue-streak wrasse acts as a toothbrush for the Oriental sweetlips. You see, the Oriental sweetlips, like many fish, have teeth. If they didn't there would be some underwater creatures without predators. If this were the case, then disastrous effects would be inflicted upon the ecosystem. Now although teeth are useful, they actually are hard to maintain. If you do not clean them, they rot and fall out. Thus, the Oriental sweetlips must have some means by which it cleans its teeth. How does a fish clean its teeth? A person cleans his teeth by brushing them. A dog doesn't brush its teeth to clean them. Instead, it chews on hard, edible substances (like bones). This tends to flake the plaque and other cavity-causing materials off its teeth. A fish could, in principle, do that, but there are very few hard, edible substances available to many fish. Thus, the Oriental sweetlips must find some other way of getting its teeth clean.
The video below shows how this happens.



After spending its day feeding on little fish, the Oriental sweetlips decides that it is time to get its teeth cleaned. To do this, it looks for a particular spot on the coral reef, which is often called a "cleaning station." When it finds the cleaning station, it swims up to it with its mouth wide open, and little blue-streak wrasses dart out of the coral and swim right into the mouth or up the gills of the Oriental sweetlips! These little fish then proceed to eat all of the plaque and other problem-causing materials off the Oriental sweetlips' teeth. This, of course, cleans the sweetlips' teeth, and it also provides an excellent meal for the blue-streak wrasses. If all of this isn't amazing enough, the Oriental sweetlips also knows not to chomp down on the blue-streak wrasses when they finish their work. It allows the little fish to swim back out of its mouth so that it can its teeth cleaned again tomorrow. Once again, this is a mutually beneficial relationship. Without the blue-streak wrasses, the Oriental sweetlips would lose its teeth. Without the Oriental sweetlips, the blue-streak wrasses would not have such fine meals.

The Relationship and Macroevolution

Macroevolution hopes to explain the origin of all species on this planet through competition and natural selection. According to macroevolution, species should compete with one another for survival. The many, many examples of mutualism in creation tell us that species do not necessarily compete. They often help each other out. This flies in the face of a fundamental assumption in macroevolution. Mutualism presents a much greater challenge to the hypothesis of macroevolution, however.
You see, macroevolution can never hope to explain many of the incredible examples of mutualism in creation. For example, think about how macroevolution would have to explain the relationship between the Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse. At some point in time, macroevolutionists would say, the sweetlips' ancestors probably had no teeth. In a number of generations, however, teeth began to form in a few of the ancestor's offspring.
Now, in order for these teeth to avoid rotting and falling out, this new fish would have to develop the instinct for seeking out the wrasse, allowing the little fish to swim into its mouth, and not eating the little fish when it was done with its work. This instinct, of course, would have to evolve at exactly the same time that the Oriental sweetlips' teeth evolved. That's not enough, however. At the exact same time that the teeth and instincts evolved in the Oriental sweetlips, the blue-streak wrasse would have to independently develop the instinct to swim right into the Oriental sweetlips' mouth without fear of being eaten! Remember, if all these things didn't happen in the same exact generation, the system would not work. Obviously it is ridiculous to believe in all of these chance coincidences occurring at the same time. Over and over again, however, this is what the scientist who believes in macroevolution must believe. When a scientist begins to look at the world around him, he sees far too many of these "happy coincidences." Among all the precisely balanced properties of atoms and subatomic particles the incredibly complex web of interactions that makes life on earth possible, the complicated nature of life itself, and the amazing design features of the animals we see in the world around us, it becomes obvious that this fantastic world around us could never have appeared by chance. It must have been designed by a powerful and intelligent designer.
As Sir Frederick Hoyle (England's foremost astrophysicist, who died in 2001) says,
"..A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Mutualism is just one more example of creation providing witness for its Creator.

References
Frederick Hoyle, "Engineering and Science", November, 1981, p.12
Dr. Jay Wile & Marilyn F. Durnell, "Exploring Creation with Biology, 2nd Edition", 2005, p.307, 308

[Nil]

How the doctrine of macroevolution could achieve such immense power I am unable to understand.

More content that I would put into a spoiler if it weren't so difficult to format: http://www.creationists.org/scientific-f...bible.html

Spoiler: The Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse

It's kind of ironic that you are unable to understand the support behind macroevolution, yet fully accept creationism (unless I'm wrong in assuming that).

It's easy to point out faults and weaknesses in the other argument, but very rarely is there a legitimate argument in favor of creationism. Because picking at holes in one argument doesn't automatically prove the other.

"Among all the precisely balanced properties of atoms and subatomic particles the incredibly complex web of interactions that makes life on earth possible, the complicated nature of life itself, and the amazing design features of the animals we see in the world around us, it becomes obvious that this fantastic world around us could never have appeared by chance. It must have been designed by a powerful and intelligent designer."

Nothing like a classic fallacy to mark the end of what seemed to be a convincing argument.

As for your mutualism example, many symbiotic relationships in nature may have started out as facultative mutualisms, in which a relationship between the two species is not essential to survival. With infinite opportunities and coincidences in nature, there is a chance for a facultative relationship to occur. It could be as simple as the wrasse found that eating the parasites off the teeth of the fish was actually beneficial to their survival, albeit not essential. Over LOTS of time, this beneficial relationship becomes dominant as natural selection has allowed them to surpass those who didn't pursue this relationship. This relationship can become the norm as both species benefit from the act, or it can turn into an obligate mutualism, in which this relationship has become ESSENTIAL for their survival. This has been seen in other species.

Mutualism by itself doesn't disprove evolution or macroevolution.

Lastly, there is no knowledge or gain in claiming creationism is the answer to something you can't explain. Because you literally aren't answering anything. You are simply creating your own explanation for something so it's easy to sit there demand answers for things when you actually can't provide any yourself. Yes, I understand what faith is, but it's worth pointing out.

[mariolinok]

If in 2015 we are speaking about creationism...we are on trouble!
You can believe or not in god but...creationism? are u serious?

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

POPE FRANCIS not Richard Dawkins

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...22514.html

[Nil]

If in 2015 we are speaking about creationism...we are on trouble!
You can believe or not in god but...creationism? are u serious?

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

POPE FRANCIS not Richard Dawkins

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...22514.html

Why does that put us in trouble? Are you blind to the fact that religious people make up majority of the population and that majority of those believe in their divine creator? I'm wondering where you thought religion was going in 2015?

Also, I'm sure Pope Francis' opinion is superior to every other Catholic in the world. If the Pope says it, it must be true... It's an appeal to authority... aka not a strong argument.

[Oni]

If in 2015 we are speaking about creationism...we are on trouble!
You can believe or not in god but...creationism? are u serious?

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

POPE FRANCIS not Richard Dawkins

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...22514.html

Honestly, Pope Francis is a pretty controversial figure. I wouldn't really consider him a representative of all Christians (much less Catholics) at this point. And yes, it was him who said that.

[. .]

My answer to this is Isaac Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.

Look it up.