how were humans made?

[wr]

computers already do 

Computers only do what they are told.

They are adding machines that calculate large numbers.

They don't contemplate anything by themselves.

Now interfacing humans and computers is another story.

 

[00david00]

Can the created posses the knowledge of the creator?......

Another question is, "Can the created possess the knowledge is that it is the creator."

you have this belief that evolution is an agenda, do you think scientists are all in on this agenda pushing it along? I ask because the field of science is extremely competitive and like I said before, if someone came out and was able to debunk evolution today they would win the noble prize, thats how solid it is. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Could you also clarify what you mean by "what we were supposed to have evolved to already existed"? what are we supposed to evolve to? It's all based on the selective pressures of the environment.

I do agree however we should continue to question the ideas. In this case you're just throwing it aside as a baseless theory pushed along because of an agenda.

"I say what were suppose to evolve to" meaning that evolution says were supposed to evolve into the modern day human homosapien which we are now. However there are fossils of modern day homosapiens going back at least 300,000 years and some would argue millions of years.

The agenda comes into play because it completely goes against Christian doctrine. It also comes into play because it doesn't account for white people. Melanin wouldn't be lost in evolution due to all the productive properties it has to offer. So even if people became lighter over the years due to an ice age, the ability to not produce melanin isn't accounted for in evolution. Taking it a step further melanin is responsible for a lot more then just skin pigment. It's more or less what they mean when they say were carbon beings. So if evolution is real, why would survival of the fittest produce a race of people who can't exist in harmony with their environment.

Well for the first point evolution doesn't say we were supposed to evolve into what we are now. It's not a climbing ladder, it's a branching bush. And 300k years is like nothing in evolutionary terms.

As for melanin. Melanin protects the skin from ultraviolet rays, which is great when you're near the equator in the planes like we were most likely where we first started in Africa. There is a reason you notice a trend, the farther you get from the equator the lighter pigmentation gets. It's because while melanin is extremely beneficial when you're under the sun, if you live somewhere that doesn't get as much sunlight it actually decreases your fitness because due to the blocking of sun rays you are not as able to activate pre vitamin D through your skin.

Thus, you see the adaptation there, where there is less sunlight, you need less melanin to create sufficient vitamin D, at the same time you don't need as much protection. The mechanisms of evolution: variation, and selection

Fitness is all based on your environment.

 

[rico x hood]

Stumbled upon this earlier today and thought it was appropriate for this thread. The story is called The Egg written by Andy Weir.

You were on your way home when you died.

It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.

And that’s when you met me.

“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”

“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.

“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”

“Yup,” I said.

“I… I died?”

“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.

You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”

“More or less,” I said.

“Are you god?” You asked.

“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”

“My kids… my wife,” you said.

“What about them?”

“Will they be all right?”

“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”

You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty. “Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”

“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”

“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”

“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”

“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.” You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”

“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.” “So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”

“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”

I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.

“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”

“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”

“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”

“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”

“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”

“Where you come from?” You said.

“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”

“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”

“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”

“So what’s the point of it all?”

“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”

“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.

I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”

“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”

“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.” “Just me? What about everyone else?”

“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”

You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”

“All you. Different incarnations of you.”

“Wait. I’m everyone!?”

“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back. “I’m every human being who ever lived?”

“Or who will ever live, yes.”

“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”

“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.

“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.

“And you’re the millions he killed.”

“I’m Jesus?”

“And you’re everyone who followed him.”

You fell silent.

“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”

You thought for a long time.

“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”

“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”

“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”

“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”

“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”

“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”

And I sent you on your way.

 

[Jordan8]

SneakerHeathen = SillyPuitty?

 

[HEATHEN]

@hallywoodxo




Bro people who stay indoors get lighter and develop a sensitivity to the sun.


White people are only white because of millions of years of adapting to their environment in the northern hemisphere.


If you're not constantly being bombarded by the sun your body has no reason to slowly build up a resistance to it.


If you're white and you're in the sun all day for years, you're going to be brown. That's melanin. That protects your skin from the sun.



If you're not being bombarded by the sun, your body has no reason to produce melanin.


In northern europe, it's not exactly miami beach. So you can imagine what millions of years of environmental conditioning can do.


So tell me how is that NOT accounted for in evolution? It's a natural process governed by natural selection. Overtime people became fairer, there was simply no need for people to have that much melanin.


And you can see how different parts of the world produced people of varying complexions, but oddly enough all suitable for their respective environments.


They ain't just get beamed down Scotty.

 

[htg designs]

Are there any other products/results of randomness besides life (animals/mammals/organisms) on earth?

 

[C.Magneto]

Well for the first point evolution doesn't say we were supposed to evolve into what we are now. It's not a climbing ladder, it's a branching bush. And 300k years is like nothing in evolutionary terms.

As for melanin. Melanin protects the skin from ultraviolet rays, which is great when you're near the equator in the plains like we were most likely where we first started in Africa. There is a reason you notice a trend, the farther you get from the equator the lighter pigmentation gets. It's because while melanin is extremely beneficial when you're under the sun, if you live somewhere that doesn't get as much sunlight it actually decreases your fitness because due to the blocking of sun rays you are not as able to activate pre vitamin D through your skin.

Thus, you see the adaptation there, where there is less sunlight, you need less melanin to create sufficient vitamin D, at the same time you don't need as much protection. The mechanisms of evolution: variation, and selection

Fitness is all based on your environment.

Agreed with that fitness sentiment.


Think of melanin like an umbrella, the closer you're to the equator the more you need the umbrella and the opposite of this. So what happens when you have a race of people who show up to the beach that doesn't have an umbrella at all? It doesn't make sense.

Melanin is known for its skin properties, but it's neural properties are it's true importance. When you start talking about DMT, Seratonin, Melatonin, the stuff that literally makes up who we are and it's all connected to melanin.

The thing about evolution branching off, is the theory is postulated on the premise of it being guided by survival. So the modern human should be the best for survival. However, The modern human has been around since Neanderthals. So how could evolution push itself to something that already existed?

Also, take a look at DNA. They say all human come from Africa. Indigenous people have no Neanderthal DNA. So who is their common ancestor that links us to him?

As far as the fossil records, you gotta take all that stuff with a grain of salt. The same people who run that are those who run these corrupt governments. So when they deny giants existed and stuff like that, then how can you take the carbon dating of the pyramids and fossil dating seriously?

Plenty of accounts out their of people who have tried to present alternate theories and literally been ran out of their professions.

Sorry for the lack of links to back up my info, im posting from mobile.

 

[ryda421]

it is, but there are much older primate fossils than we have ever found of human fossils. The earliest homo sapien is like 200k years old. Whereas the earliest fossils of the genus "homo" are from about 2 million years ago.

i understand


but its incomplete. it's like a half answered question

 

[sea manup]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/01/26271801-1.jpg

 

[00david00]

Well for the first point evolution doesn't say we were supposed to evolve into what we are now. It's not a climbing ladder, it's a branching bush. And 300k years is like nothing in evolutionary terms.

As for melanin. Melanin protects the skin from ultraviolet rays, which is great when you're near the equator in the plains like we were most likely where we first started in Africa. There is a reason you notice a trend, the farther you get from the equator the lighter pigmentation gets. It's because while melanin is extremely beneficial when you're under the sun, if you live somewhere that doesn't get as much sunlight it actually decreases your fitness because due to the blocking of sun rays you are not as able to activate pre vitamin D through your skin.

Thus, you see the adaptation there, where there is less sunlight, you need less melanin to create sufficient vitamin D, at the same time you don't need as much protection. The mechanisms of evolution: variation, and selection

Fitness is all based on your environment.

Agreed with that fitness sentiment.


Think of melanin like an umbrella, the closer you're to the equator the more you need the umbrella and the opposite of this. So what happens when you have a race of people who show up to the beach that doesn't have an umbrella at all? It doesn't make sense.

Melanin is known for its skin properties, but it's neural properties are it's true importance. When you start talking about DMT, Seratonin, Melatonin, the stuff that literally makes up who we are and it's all connected to melanin.

The thing about evolution branching off, is the theory is postulated on the premise of it being guided by survival. So the modern human should be the best for survival. However, The modern human has been around since Neanderthals. So how could evolution push itself to something that already existed?

Also, take a look at DNA. They say all human come from Africa. Indigenous people have no Neanderthal DNA. So who is their common ancestor that links us to him?

As far as the fossil records, you gotta take all that stuff with a grain of salt. The same people who run that are those who run these corrupt governments. So when they deny giants existed and stuff like that, then how can you take the carbon dating of the pyramids and fossil dating seriously?

Plenty of accounts out their of people who have tried to present alternate theories and literally been ran out of their professions.

Sorry for the lack of links to back up my info, im posting from mobile.

I agree with you and Ryda though that the fossil record alone is a unreliable source for the answer more so because it's so incomplete. Hell every 5-10 years there seem to be discoveries in the field that shake everything up, so we just have to give it time for now. you DO need to take the fossil record with a grain of salt, but at the same time I don't think it's ran by corrupt governments. When the first arguments that humans came out of Africa emerged based on the fossil record, there was lots of opposition due to racism. Lot of people didn't want to believe and still don't that the earliest humans we can find are from Africa. Hell you can find people denying it making the same argument, that its some sort of agenda.

For the umbrella example. This is why you see a general trend, the closer a population is to the equator, the more pigmentation they possess. Obviously now with our technological advances we mix it all up, but if you look at the histories that's the general trend.

View media item 763507
For neanderthals, this seems to be from interbreeding between homosapiens that migrated out of Africa into Europe/Asia and neanderthals. Interbreeding seemed to occur, but it wasn't at the scale to create new population. ie europeans aren't the product of homosapiens out of Africa and neanderthals. "Humans and Neanderthals did not merge into a single people, however; the 2.5 percent of Neanderthal DNA found in Asians and Europeans is a very small fraction. Mathias Currat and Laurent Excoffier, two Swiss geneticists, studied how much interbreeding would be necessary to end up with so little Neanderthal DNA in humans today. All it would take, they concluded, would be for a Neanderthal and a human to create a child once every 30 years."

As far as the neural properties of melanin, honestly we would need someone to provide the evidence for these properties before we could really attribute and then factor them into the evolutionary discussion.

 

[jaysrcrak]

Dont know who created humans.
But Transformers were created by the almighty Vector Sigma.

 

[ctidda]

Religions, gravity, and evolution are all theories.
Only one doesn't have facts to support it and IDK why people just accept it as true.
Evolution may or may not be 100% true but it does lead somewhere that has factual evidence that could start to answer a lot of questions.

Now, where we came from originally is a whole new question that I don't think can ever be proven. Evolution may be true but that doesn't answer where we came from at the base of our evolution tree.


Just look into the sky and try to imagine where space ends. There are possibilities we don't even know about that could factor into the equation.


I've always believed we are all just smart animals. Even through Catholic school for eight years.
I just can't believe we were put here by unicorns.

Repped

Chills fam

 

[createdestroy]

 
Religions, gravity, and evolution are all theories.
Only one doesn't have facts to support it and IDK why people just accept it as true.

View media item 763647

 

[ryda421]

 

[boris]

"I say what were suppose to evolve to" meaning that evolution says were supposed to evolve into the modern day human homosapien which we are now. 

What are you trying to say here? Evolution does not say that we were supposed to evolve into modern day humans. We are modern day humans.

However there are fossils of modern day homosapiens going back at least 300,000 years and some would argue millions of years.

As far as I'm aware, scientists currently theorize that modern humans developed around 200,000 years ago. What source are you using? 

The agenda comes into play because it completely goes against Christian doctrine. 

So, it's an agenda just because it disagrees with Christian doctrine? There are Christians that accept evolution.

It also comes into play because it doesn't account for white people. Melanin wouldn't be lost in evolution due to all the productive properties it has to offer. So even if people became lighter over the years due to an ice age, the ability to not produce melanin isn't accounted for in evolution. Taking it a step further melanin is responsible for a lot more then just skin pigment. It's more or less what they mean when they say were carbon beings. So if evolution is real, why would survival of the fittest produce a race of people who can't exist in harmony with their environment.

I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin#Evolution

 

[Master Zik]

anyone know?

Semen and sea ppl

 

[varcity23]

Richard Dawkins, Famous Atheist, Not Entirely Sure God Doesn't Exist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/richard-dawkins-famous-atheist-god_n_1299752.html

And one more!!

Question: "What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?"

Answer: Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.



Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html#ixzz2rJ7n7Dpt

 

[boris]

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html#ixzz2rJ7n7Dpt

I'd love to see sources for this article, but it doesn't seem to cite anything. 

 

[varcity23]

I'd love to see sources for this article, but it doesn't seem to cite anything. 

Here you go buddy...Recommended Resources: Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible by John MacArthur and Logos Bible Software.

 

[boris]

 

 
I'd love to see sources for this article, but it doesn't seem to cite anything. 

Here you go buddy...Recommended Resources: Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible by John MacArthur and Logos Bible Software.

So, no scientific articles? Just one book written by a pastor that doesn't have a background in science? 

 

[00david00]

first flaw: this is just a case of two competing hypothesis. give it time and with more evidence it'll be a clearer picture.

second flaw: I think the idea is that macro evolution is really microevolution for something like 3.8 billion years.

third flaw: yeah I can agree with that. I don't think evolution and religion/spirituallity/God must be mutually exclusive

 

[varcity23]

So, no scientific articles? Just one book written by a pastor that doesn't have a background in science?

Sources for what?? LOL Its commen knowledge...

Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment).

Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.

Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. We will now take a closer look at both microevolution and macroevolution.

Microevolution

We will begin with microevolution. Let’s say, for example, that within the dog genome there are both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction, and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.

Now let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So, if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e., microevolution).

If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.

Genetic Mutation

Now imagine that, within a longhair Hh population, a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation.

Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic, therefore, has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information; they lose it. It is not, therefore, an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted, but of microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 199

Macroevolution

Now let’s look at macroevolution. Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]

The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”

The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)

Creation vs. Evolution

When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomenon. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no true scientific evidence for macroevolution, and, in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation-vs.-evolution debate.

 

[boris]

 

 
So, no scientific articles? Just one book written by a pastor that doesn't have a background in science?

Sources for what?? LOL Its commen knowledge...

Sources for the information used in the article. Typically, a scientific article cites sources to support the information that it presents.

It's clearly not common knowledge considering the fact that the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and disagree with the information in the article that you posted.

Can you explain to me, in your own words, how micro and macro-evolution differ at the genetic level?

 

[iamjusayn]

Silly putty is in here somewhere. I'm just narrowing it down to one out of two.

Carry on

 

[mr marcus]

Just need to know how the pyramids were made...believed what I was taught in grade school until I found out about the detail mathematics behind it....then I was like