If you reply, Icy Dude, then quote what you are talking about. It is to confusing to work with what you have said if it's not in quotes. If you don't, I will not respond.
How to quote
Icy Dude said:
i made no remarks whatsoever about some groups of humans being "superior" to others
You don't need to. It was implied. If groups are different than others, then they must be better in certain areas than the other groups, or they wouldn't be different. And whatever group had better "differences" would be the more favorable group.
although i hold no grudge, creationists stop at nothing to portray evolution as evil, they go so far that they have the nerve to compare it to Nazism
I thought Evolution was the idea that the better species would survive and reproduce, making stronger and stronger species. Sounds like the Aryan race to me.
show me 1 place in the bible where it mentions micro-evolution occuring in nature.
Remember, the Bible did not have the term "micro-evolution" so it has a different way of explaining the same. A example verse:
Genesis 1:20
"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." (verse 21) So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Verse 22) God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
Also, let it be known, that micro evolution does not conflict what so ever with the biblical account of creation. Macro evolution does.
mocked the entire idea, and did not mention any sort of "micro-evolution" being "Ok".
Yes, I would like to see where you are getting this. Chances are, the church objected to Macro evolution, not micro evolution, which does NOT support evolution.
only in recent years have creationists realized that they have to accept that some evolution does eoccure, so they made the artificial seperation between "micro" and "macro"
Lol Microevolution does not equal Macroevolution
easiest example is Bacteria immunizing itself to antibiotics
Because bacteria being immune to our medicines helps humans out in surviving. Far from beneficial. Also, as you have missed the point behind the actual question, the mutations within the bacteria, even after 'billions' of years will still render the bacteria, simply bacteria. It will never change into something higher order as it is LOSING genetic information with mutations
evolution is not about an organism changing into another
When I read this, I knew I was talking to a fool. You need to learn more about what you hold so dearly before you come here again. FYI fish->amphibian is organism to organism.
Shredderbeam said:
A universal law is one that applies everywhere.
Exactly
In the case of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, all closed systems will end up heading towards entropy.
You just said it applied everywhere....(and we both know thermodynamics is a universal law)
To isolate a system, all you need to do is remove outside sources of energy. This we have succeeded in doing.
Not only you need to remove outside energy, but you also need to remove everything with in the isolated system to make it completely isolated. This is impossible to do and this is why we have never fully tested an isolated system, and everything has been an open system
Sunlight allows a plant to create carbohydrates. The very small rate of cellular damage from UV rays pales in comparison to the enormous benefit of being able to feed oneself.
Yes, for plants, sunlight is quite helpful (as it has numerous mechanisms converting the sunlight) however sunlight is not as helpful for other organisms. Thus the need for constant skin protection in the summer, as the sunlight can cause cancer (mutated cells). Everything is affected by the sun, not just plants.
Not to worry, it's a common error that most creationists make.
Certainly, I can discuss the origins of life if you like.
Talkorigins is quite a wonderful site, yes.
When you talk about evolution, you inherently must assume an origin, or you are believing something on blind faith. Regardless if you don't believe they are the same(in terms of discussion), evolution is impossible without the other.
Right, and my cleaning the room is the input of energy that it requires. If you take away that energy source, the room slowly begins to delay, but if I am there, constantly cleaning, its organization level can be maintained at my expense.
yes, you would always have to input energy to keep it clean. Even if you are constantly there to clean it. This is what I originally said....
Macroevolution is the compilation of steps taken in microevolution.
However, they are not equal. macroevolution relies heavily on microevolution, but they are NOT equal. If they were, we wouldn't have two different terms.
Actually, macroevolution could be falsified by, as J.B.S. Haldane said, "Fossil rabbits in the precambrian".
Or the countless living fossils we have found, which have not changed at all since the 'millions' of years of their extinction.
Most of those whales lack even complete skeletons, and much was "interpreted" (of course with an evolutionary bias)
Example is the Ambulocetus
The bottom skeleton is the bones actually found with the red bones being found 5 meters above the rest.
Ancient whales with vestigal legs would seem to imply that they used to be land-borne.
There is no such thing as a vestigial organ. We don't know what it's purpose is, but with further research, the answer will be figured out. Ex. Appendix.
As to the actual question, similar designs hold no evidence showing we have evolved. It simply shows, at best, that the two organisms in question have similar designs. Another point is the need for evolutionists to explain the underlying common factors between organisms as a reason for evolution. It is simply unsupported reasoning.
Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.
I think we might be getting somewhere. Evolution
relies quite heavily on organisms evolving due to chance beneficial mutations occurring, even though they are drowned out by thousands of negative mutations before the organism reaches the one beneficial mutation (and even if the mutation is considered beneficial, it really is not as it often causes much more problems elsewhere.)
I've done quite a bit of research into Creationism, and I have never encountered such empirical evidence. I'd love to see it.
Ok, anything in particular you would like to see? This is kind of broad. Keep in mind you will have a biased when viewing the evidence, so it will not be such 'evidence' to you, but none-the-less I can still show you.
Do you really expect to see any large number of beneficial muations?
It's a waste of time. Actually, there isn't even enough time.
"But 5 billion years is only about 10^17 seconds, and the whole universe contains fewer than 10^80 atoms. So even by the wildest “guesstimates,†the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 10^3,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse."
Laughable.
