Denial of evolution
- Thread starter river-wind
- Start date
- Status
What's the creationist explanation for MHC genes? MHC genes are a part of reality.Carlco said:
Or even just the genes that make fish-scales, feathers, hairs and armadillo body armour.?
These varied, but homogenetic (i.e. not heterogenetic) structures uncover a common thread, a connection between fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Undeniable evidence for evolution and common descent.
solidsquid
Registered Member
False. Here's why:
1) In reality apes breed apes, humans breed humans
2) Hybrids like mules are sterile. Look it up for yourself
So while many scientists may not know that apes breed apes and humans breed humans, I have reality to back me up.So maybe you need to get out of your science books and go visit a zoo sometime to see what each animal breeds. Until you do, I'm afraid that no one can help you.
That's what I thought, you have NOTHING. Your childish reasoning is laughable. You have no clue that what I posted DIRECTLY contradicted your argument and ripped it apart. You are so lost in something that is above your level of understanding that you can only spout back this childish answer. It is people such as you who will be the death of our species.
Not according to the studies.
There are many many flaws, but I like that one
How else would a 10 to twelve pounds be supported.
It would seem to be logical to place the fetus in the craddle of the pelvis ensuring the more than adequate support for the vital organs and the child.
While we may not understand the design there does seem to be a purpose.
I'm going to regret this, but... what studies?
The studies. Obviously.
The problem is with the position of the birth canal, not the position of the support.
Does it not seem strange to you that the main supporting structure of our bodies is unnecessarily weakened by the holes running through it?
There is no reason that the birth canal and excretory tracts need to run through the pelvic floor. A better design would have them exit above or around the pelvis.
There are other problems with the pelvis too... it really looks like we're bipeds with a tweaked quadruped pelvis.
yeah but the opening could have been through the front, not the pelvic floor.
The problem is with the position of the birth canal, not the position of the support.
Does it not seem strange to you that the main supporting structure of our bodies is unnecessarily weakened by the holes running through it?
There is no reason that the birth canal and excretory tracts need to run through the pelvic floor. A better design would have them exit above or around the pelvis.
There are other problems with the pelvis too... it really looks like we're bipeds with a tweaked quadruped pelvis.
So...could you design a human being with billions of neurons and cells so that it works better than ours? if so, let's hear your explanation of how to do that. You can start with designing the DNA of even one human being...that doesn't mean copying our DNA either. it means coming up with your own design.
So...could you design a human being with billions of neurons and cells so that it works better than ours? if so, let's hear your explanation of how to do that. You can start with designing the DNA of even one human being...that doesn't mean copying our DNA either. it means coming up with your own design.
No.
But I could certainly produce a much better design for our bulk biomechanics.
Do you think that God is great at microscopic design, but crap at larger scale engineering?
:roflmao: Oh really? So what human genes did the first transitional species to come out of the first fictitious beast contain? To be somewhat bipedal? Perhaps alternately hopping and walking on all fours? :shrug: Why don't you provide more details since you claim that evolution is a fact? So let's hear them:
1) How many transitional species were there and where did each group live?
2) Which human genes were passed along to the first transitional species, then the 2nd, 3, 4th, etc.?
3) When was the first fully speaking man born and how many of that species could speak at the same time?
4) What did the common ancestor look like and how many were there?
5) What language did these creatures speak?
For starters. So get real and come up with facts, not blanket statements that evolution even happened without providing real evidence except sculptures of bones pieced together from many different animals and humans. You guys are unreal.
Hi Carico,
Have you ever read anything substantial about evolution that wasn't written by a creationist?
If someone wanted to know if the story of Jesus was true, do you think it would help if they only read things by people who strongly believe it to be false?
Have you ever read anything substantial about evolution that wasn't written by a creationist?
If someone wanted to know if the story of Jesus was true, do you think it would help if they only read things by people who strongly believe it to be false?
I'll go one at a time. Since I have a rather low expectation that any attempt I make will have an effect on your entrenched POV.Carico said:
How many species have been transitional? All the ones that reproduced successfully. There are species that can reproduce but they don't diverge or branch so die out when conditions change.
In general evolution provides a way for species to not get caught out because they have stayed with the same genetic variation and will go extinct eventually.
This "way out", is divergence into several descendant varieties, all of which have a common ancestor. This is a much more immediate strategy for bacteria and virus evolution, who evolve much more rapidly by diverging into new, and abandoning old varieties (the old varieties die out as they're replaced by fitter ones). "Variety" means species if you're a bacterium.
P.S. This means that we humans, being the last of our family, the only surviving Homo species, will go extinct unless we diverge at some point.
Last edited:
Actually I studied evolution in school since I, like all children, have been brainwashed since elementary school to believe evolution. It's written in all science books. So sorry, but the theory of evolution comes from scientists themselves, not from Christians. And considering that it contradicts the way animals and humans breed, accounts of our apes ancestors haven't been passed along by any ancient cultures, and apes are still around today and haven't been breeding anything that resembles a human, genes don't magically change into the genes of another animal, then REALITY, not what creationists say, proves that evolution is not only impossible, but an embarsassingly ridiculous story that is much more far-fetched than "Lord of the Rings."!
So my beliefs come from reality, not the imagination, of people, unlike your beliefs which come from scientists, not reality.
Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." So anyone who does not believe that God created man out of the dust of the ground but instead makes up his own bible that God created man out of the wombs of wild beasts is not a follower of Christ, no matter what he claims since Jesus was present with God at creation as John 1;1-2 & Genesis 1:26 explain. So these "Christian" evolutionists don't believe Jesus. They merely honor him with their lips.
No, it is not. Most public schools in the US teach very little of the theory of evolution.
No, it does not. It explains the way animals, including humans, breed.
You are using a bunch of logical fallacies here. This is a straw man argument, an argument from ridicule, and a red herring. You are breaking the ninth commandment.
No. Evolution comes from reality. Your beliefs are a myth.So my beliefs come from reality, not the imagination, of people, unlike your beliefs which come from scientists, not reality.
This statement is what enables so-called christians to feel empowered to kill, lie, and steal in the name of their god. I am beginning to agree with Fraggle. Christianity (some brands of it, at least) is a moral disease.
- Status