Another reason I don't believe Darwin's theory

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

If Darwinian evolution were really true, I've decided there would be no mammals...the earth would be ruled by cold-blooded reptiles, fish, and amphibians.  I say this because while feeding their young milk may be mighty handy, it is certainly not always easy.  I think in order for Darwin to be correct, most mammals wouldn't have lasted long at breastfeeding... they would have evolved some easier way to feed their young... especially during those first excruciating days where the babies are nursing constantly, and then during the days when the milk comes in and they are uncomfortably full of milk and they feel like their nipples are going to fall off.  (In the past few days, I've developed a deep compassion for mother dogs and cats... and just imagine, they have big litters, too!)  Have you ever thought about why a mother animal doesn't just leave her young to fend for themselves?  If animals are incapable of having "feelings" for one another, what would drive a cow to accept her calf, a sow to accept her piglets, a dog to accept her pups, and so on?  It would seem to me that without something more than "instinct" it wouldn't be possible.  For humans, it makes more sense that we nurse our babies... after all, we love them and would walk through fire for them (which sometimes sounds a little easier).  But why do other mammals nurse their young?  What reason do they have?  It can be very painful at first, so I have to wonder why they continue... why didn't they just give up and let the species die out, if Darwin was right?     guess this is my deep thought for the day.  Guess who was up and hungry until 12:30 this morning?

[glenn kangiser]

Sorry Homey...you are not going to trick me into commenting on this one.  Nope....I'm not gonna bite.

[Sassy]

    what can I say about my DH???   

Another thought I've had along those lines...  how in the world did a pair in each specie "evolve" at the same time to have sex so they could procreate?  You never hear anything said about that by the evolutionists...  it takes a leap of faith to believe that so much complexity came about by chance, and then that 2 lions evolved at the same time to be able to mate & have offspring...      That takes more faith to me than believing in "intelligent design" or "God" creating everything & believing that "God" has always been... 

BTW, did anyone see "Expelled" with Ben Stein?  You saw it, didn't you, HG?  I haven't had a chance, but want to see it. I've heard good things about it.

BTW, I feel for you    My son had a dog that had 8 puppies recently - when they got 5-6 weeks old, the mama would stand up & all those puppies would be tugging away at her - with all those sharp teeth - at least human babies don't have teeth at 1st   

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

Yes, I saw it.  Stein should have asked these questions of the evolutionary biologists! 

Glenn, I wasn't trying to stir up controversy necessarily... like I said, this is what I converse with Sylvia about in the wee hours, but she is busy eating then, so she doesn't have a lot of input.

[glenn kangiser]

You ladies are not alone.

My dog, Spike is just growing his jewels - fairly prominently. 

Suzy (my female dog) and him like to wrestle -- rather violently sometimes.  She thought grabbing this new little bag of treasures with her teeth would give her some kind of evil advantage over poor Spike in the wrestling match.  Left two big ol' red lines all the way down.  Owwwww.

[benevolance]

well as for evolution... There are all kinds of ways nature can take us from one thing to another.

There are failed mutations... and then there are mutations that start to creep up... and sometimes it takes a while for them to take hold there is a transition period... where one species of bird is changing... If we are talking darwin... lets talk length of beaks on finches...

A finch has a longer beak and it allows them to feed easier on nectar. not all the birds may have this new adaptation...And it may not necessarily pass onto all of the young of the next generation...So it may be something that slowly works it's way into dominance generation after generation until it is the norm not the exception.

I think we have this idea of one day we wake up and there is a new species or a old species suddenly is evolved....This sort of thing could take thousands upon thousands of years....thousands upon thousands of generations

[Sassy]

So, Peter, how did the same mutation (which normally causes degradation rather than advancement) happen in 2 different entities at the same time & then change over "millions" of years to create male & female at a similar time frame so that they could mate?  No evolutionist has ever answered that question...  they just speculate.  Sure there are minor differences in species - dogs are different colors, even in the same litter, some are bigger, some are smaller;  Darwin observed changes in the length/breadth of birds beaks in the Galapagos Islands...  he later came to observe that the changes were adaptations during times of drought/lack of food vs plenty...  the birds' beaks went back to their normal size when there was plenty of water & their normal food.  Darwin stated, himself, in his concluding paragraph of Origin of Species  "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Stasis - Yesterday Once More
Author: Bruce Malone

Illustrated throughout this article are a few of the thousands of types of life which have remained literally unchanged while millions of years have supposedly passed. Meanwhile other forms of life were supposedly changing all the way from fish to people without leaving any transitional record. This is one of many problems with the belief in evolutionism. The pictures in this article show the fossilized or amber encapsulated organism (often assumed to be over 100 million years old) compared with the identical modern living specimen (in the smaller inset picture).
Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

It is a fact of biology that organisms have an incredible ability to reproduce copies of themselves without mistakes. So where do new types of animals come from? Evolutionists theorize that new animals arise when a reproductive mistake happens. They believe this creature slowly turns into a completely different creature (without leaving any fossil remains of the transitional forms). Meanwhile other animals of the same type remained identical for millions of years! There is an acknowledged lack of evidence for the transitional forms between vastly different types of animals. The current textbook explanation concerning the lack of fossil evidence for evolution is called "punctuated equilibrium". According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil record of their transformations because it happens quickly in relatively small populations or in isolated locations.

Logic Check Time:

What does the Biological Record Show?-Stasis (Lack of Change).

Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution is happening SO SLOW that we do not see it today.

What does the fossil record show?-No intermediate forms between different animal groups.

Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution happened SO FAST that the fossil record did not record it.

Apparently I am not the only person unconvinced by evolutionist's religious adherence to such inconsistent reasoning because a November 1991 Gallop poll showed that 47% of the people in the United States still believe that God created human beings in the last 10,000 years.

   1. Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, and author of the book, Evolution, made the following written comment when questioned why he did not include any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, . . . "if I knew of any, I certainly would have include them . . .". The full text of his statement is documented in Darwin's Enigma by Luther Sunderland, pp. 88-90. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record simply because creatures never turn into a completely different type of creature.

[benevolance]

Sassy

Who said that it required both male and female with the new genetic adaptation to reproduce to allow the new trait to be carried out into the next generation? We have proven in science that it does not...they cross breed species of plants and trees selectively and have done so for hundreds and hundreds of years...in doing so we can successfully manipulate the traits we are looking for and eliminate many of those that we are not.

A advanced male can mate with a female that does not have the new trait... and there is a chance that the new trait will not be evident in the offspring... But as more and more specimens show the trait there is a higher and higher chance that the young of the next generation will have the new trait...and it will become commonplace sooner or later...the adaptation will become dominant...

We forget that over the course of millions of years these changes were brought on by necessity.... new food sources change of climate.. predators.... so over time the specimens without the adaptation would quickly die off... not being able to find food, or avoid a predator...Those specimens that could adapt survived.... simple as that....

[Sassy]

You still didn't answer the question...    

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

Sounds kind of like the "they piggy-backed on crystals" explanation offered in Expelled by one of the biologists interviewed.

[glenn kangiser]

Aren't all males advanced?

[benevolance]

Sassy

Yes I did answer...

you are basing your arguement on an assumption that is folly...

We have seen through our manipulation of plants and animals in the short time we have been literate and in control of our physical universe that with selective breeding you can slowly bring about changes in plants and animals.... This myth that 2 new species need to be created at the same time so they can breed with one another to make a new improved species is ridiculous

that is not how it works and it is not how Darwin said it worked either...

[glenn kangiser]

I'm sorry, Peter, but I have to argue with you too. 

I'm a Lithuanian and I'm here, and it's a pretty well proven fact that apes won't mate with Lithuanians....so there.

If your theory was correct...then how did I get here?   

[benevolance]

come on guys...

Look at it for what it is...

no apes and horses cannot mate.... That is not what evolution is all about... it is not new species springing up from nothing or nowhere.

Let me explain this so everyone will get it.

We are talking about the natural selection process by which certian traits get passed on or phased out...

We all come in many shapes and sizes... with different color hair and eyes... some are left handed some right...etc... It is this way with animals in the wild as well... Though they do not have a problem finding a hockey stick if they are left handed (LOL)

the origin of species covers a couple of things... it covers passing on of existing traits... and new ones being introduced into the species...

We evolve out of necessity....Human beings have appendixes because 100,000 years ago we ate tree bark and chewed grass to survive....As we evolved we no longer ate those things and the appendix is not an essential organ in our bodies... Slowly over thousands of generations it is becomming less prominent...because we do not use them....Who knows someday there might be humans born without them...

But a male with an appendix could still mate with a female without one... and the offspring would have a 50% chance of having one... But as more people were born without the appendix and they reproduced the trait would become more common and the chances of it being passed down to their young would increase.... after many generations it might well become a dominant trait so that all humans or 995 of them would be born without an appendix

Now in the wild these changes were brought about because of new food sources... changing climates...migration... developing resistence to preditors...etc..

We need to remember that the changes were small and sometimes something so sublte as light coloured skin or...Long thin fingers

I do not know where this idea sprang from that one new species was born and it had to have another of the opposite sex to mate with... and because this is not possible the origin of species and the theory of evolution is presumably false...\

Like I said that is not what Darwin is talking about... He is talking about changes or adaptations brought about from changes to the physical environment... a response to stimuli....

Consider this also....

I am left handed... that does not mean I have to find a left handed female to create a child.... left handedness is a trait... that may or may not be passed down.... If in the wild being left handed allowed someone to gather more food or avoid a predator more easily left handed people would have a higher survival rate... and ergo they would have a better chance of creating offspring...and ergo the trait of being left handed would become more common and it might even eventually become the norm...

[glenn kangiser]

Well, the male/male thing and the female/female thing along with the left hand seem to be going nowhere, so I think I will have to stick with the creation thing. 

[Sassy]

Sassy

Yes I did answer...

you are basing your arguement on an assumption that is folly...

We have seen through our manipulation of plants and animals in the short time we have been literate and in control of our physical universe that with selective breeding you can slowly bring about changes in plants and animals.... This myth that 2 new species need to be created at the same time so they can breed with one another to make a new improved species is ridiculous

that is not how it works and it is not how Darwin said it worked either...

So, it seems like that has taken "intelligent design"...   

[benevolance]

Sassy

the problem is that you are holding onto the lies of the bible... adam and eve... it is limiting your perceptions of reality.. The bible is a book of stories... none of them are true... we did not spring forth from the dirt to become man...

Micro organisms changed slowly over hundreds of millions maybe even a billion years... and those teeny tiny organisms slowly started to split into different categories... some taking shelter on land.. some in the air.. some in the water... some underground....

the flora and fauna we see today on this planet are a result of that process...Adam and Eve never existed... it is a story pushed down our throats so we would be obedient and let the church rule us like docile cattle in the past...

Forget the bible... let go of it's lies and you will start to see things in a much better light

[NetHog]

I love a good evolution discussion

Benevolance... someone's holding onto lies, the question is who?

I'm a software engineer by trade. I spend my time creating programs. I get paid because programs can't evolve, and can't come from nothing. Based on my experience of programs, I know this:

Life can only exist "by chance" based on a sequence of events. Think of Sassy's problem right now, and work your way back to simple small life forms. Let's assume for a minute they exist (but it's a huge leap of sequences of if's on how you get from inert to life). At this time, reproduction is done by cell splitting. There's nothing "male" and nothing "female" just cell splitting.

Now, walk me through the sequence of events that can get from this, to a male and female (hmm, what's needed in mamal reproduction for the whole cycle to be viable?)

Any evolutionist who can explain to me a sequence of viable, reasonably probably sequence of steps will be able to convince me... even more, I'll go halves in patenting the sequence and create the first ever evolving program! If life can evolve, then surely something relatively simple as a program with the help of a creator can make it happen.

[NM_Shooter]

So with regards to bible based religions, I chose to believe.  That's why it is called faith and not called science (except of course, for that Tom Cruise thing he does).  I chose to believe in spite of the fact that God cannot be proven. 

I have wondered why Darwin and religion need be so far apart.  I suspect that because one major premise is that God made man in his image.  How are we going to spin that once we find life elsewhere in the universe?  Perhaps image is not in the eye in this case. 

I believe in evolution, and I believe in God.  Intelligent design, huh?  I should look into that 

BTW...NetHog... I thought I just read that the robotics / neural net / fuzzy logic guys are all in a tizzy, as some machine algorithm is now showing signs of autonomous logic and learning.  You may be evolved out of a job soon!  (But of course, someone had to create this algorithm, didn't they?)

[NetHog]

...
I believe in evolution, and I believe in God.  Intelligent design, huh?  I should look into that 

BTW...NetHog... I thought I just read that the robotics / neural net / fuzzy logic guys are all in a tizzy, as some machine algorithm is now showing signs of autonomous logic and learning.  You may be evolved out of a job soon!  (But of course, someone had to create this algorithm, didn't they?)

I believe micro-evolution exists. In terms of macro-evolution, I moved from pure evolutionist to "God guided evolution" through to young earth creationist. 

If you can dig out the article that you read, can you send it to me, I love keeping on top of this stuff (I did research in Neural Networks).

[NM_Shooter]

Let me look around... might have even been in Popular Science. 

My in-law did a ton of work in neural nets.  He won some sort of award for his research.  Even hear of Don Bustamante?  I'll send him an email and see if he can point me in the right direction...

[Daddymem]

You are all wrong.  FSM has touched us all with his noodly appendage.

Sorry, has to be brought up whenever Intelligent design is brought to the table, remember it was made up in the 80's to sneak religion into schools.

[glenn kangiser]

I love it with Ragu.

[MountainDon]

I have faith in evolution.