Feral, there are changes happening to species, look it up in the scientific diaries out there. Animals are changing ever so slightly but it is happening. In evolutionary terms 2000 years is but a micromillinanosecond of time. We will see more if records are not destroyed.

As for the big bang theory, it is just that a theory as is evolution, man will not discover his origin before he is extinct on this planet and another species will dominate. Such is the way of our planet. It runs in cycles, man dominates now, but will not dominate forever. Man is but an animal, with the same weaknesses and cycles as all animals have. Evolution will change us, as it does everything.

Humbling as that fact is, it is the way of our world.

That's not actually true.

In agriculture we have seen plants bred to the point where they can no longer pollinate with the original plants. In fact, this has been happening for millennia as mankind has domesticated plants.

If a new ‘species’ is merely defined by one that can no longer procreate with it’s original linage, then we’ve certainly seen this occur in animals too.

It seems that radical fanaticals expect radical results. Like someone else mentioned, it’s like they are expecting to see an alligator have puppies. That kind of drastic profound evolution simply doesn’t occur, and never has. But the more subtle aspects of evolution are indeed occurring all around us. So I’m not prepared to accept your conclusion, and I’m pretty sure biologists would argue against your conclusions as well.

Yeah, it's called Polyploidy and it's not covered by Darwin's theory. Funny how evolutionists always mention a failure in cell division as their "proof" of evolution.

I'm not talking about with the help of man....I know firsthand how man screws with things.....I take care of Ligras.....bred between a lion and a tiger...and let me tell you they are messed up......thats what happens when people mess with God's divine

This is a man thing....not a natural happening....But never have we actually seen in nature something that is turn into something else.....no sir re bob.....not happening.

You can't argue with what isn't.

That's because the process of evolution takes millions of years, as according to up to date findings, it took several millions of years between the chimp and homo sapian filled with pre human species such as homo erectus (the first to leave africa aka'd as "running man"). I find it hard to disbelieve in evolution, the evidance is overwhelming, however it does reaffirm my faith in God;^]

Sorry sugar but never going to happen.....And scientist seeing something evolutionizing a fraction over 2000 years proves that it so much poppy ****...that it amazes me people can be so easily led to believe theories....

Also, concerning "theories", you have to remember that theory is the last step before scientific law. A theory is alot more than just an educated guess, that would be a hypothisis, evolution is considered theory because it's almost provable but not quite. That's what a theory is, something past hypothisis that is almost proven. Alot of common folk have the wrong definition of "theory";^]

If it couldn't happen by god's rules it wouldn't happen at all, therefore the fact that you see it happen, though you blame man, is proof in and of itself that it does happen. Seems like running around in circles and chasing your tale as you are proving yourself to be wrong with your own answers.

I believe that the reason there is hesitation to calling it scientific fact is the pull from the religious right to continue to teach our children that incest created man as in creationism. That is much more believable

There is a big difference in animals, plants, going through an evolutionary change on their own and through man......It's not the same. And evolution naturally to change one species into a complete separate species I am afraid is just not so.....Human's never fell from a speck of dust, that fell into the water, and turned into a tad pole, that crawled out and turned into a monkey, that turned into an ape.....that eventually became a man.....And why is it that we remain the same......we have not changed in over 2000 years......why is that....because we have never changed....we have always been humans and will remain as such until the end of times. Does that mean that we can't as a species change within ourselves...no I think that eventually we may loose appendix, lil toe etc....but not change completely into a whole new species of being.

He’s the bottom line Spider,…

Scientist’s ONLY agenda is the discovery of TRUTH!

They have no other agenda.

They don’t care whether their observations lead to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old, 4.5 Billion years old, or hundreds of billions of years old.

They are seeking a specific answer. All they are concerned about it the TRUTH whatever it might be.

Also, scientists aren’t just a handful off guys hanging out in a laboratory plotting to pull the wool over the eyes of all of humanity. On the contrary, scientists work independently all over the world in many differnet countries and cultures. They are ALL coming to the SAME unbiased conclusions.

So here you are asking that we denounce these independent unbiased studies of people who are only searching for TRUTH with no agenda for what that TRUTH might be, in favor of what? In favor of warping all of the observation to try to fit them into a preconceived idea of what some ancient mythologies suggest?

People have tried! Scientists have tried! You simply can’t twist the data that far. It won’t match up.

By the way, whilst we’re talking about evidence and proofs! How about the FACT that there were many religious mythological stories that almost parallel the Bible perfectly, except that they took place in different times with different people? Right there is evidence that these stories are most likely the creative fictions of men!

Get with it Spider. If you want to talk about being silly and unrealistic just take an honest look at what you are proposing! You want to twist everything we observe to match a mythological story that has evidence for being nothing more than the fictitious tales of men!

I’m sorry Spider, but your arguments fall flat on their face every time.

Why do you feel a need to attack the unbiased worldwide investigation into TRUTH, in favor of supporting completely unsubstantiated myths?

You’re just barking up the wrong tree.

I’ve told you many times before, if you want to sell your religion you should to it from a theological point of view. Accept that the stories are allegorical and that God very well may have actually used evolution to create man form the ‘dust’ of the earth.

Trying to force a literal interpretation of a book that is clearly allegorical in its own right is absurd to begin with.

Moreover, the Bible itself never says that the earth is only 6,000 years old! That idea came from some Bishop who calculated that number based on who begat whom from the time of Adam and Eve!

Yet even you have suggested in other threads that God had actually created mankind prior to Adam and Eve (so that could push the clock back MUCH FURTHER!). Perhaps you have recanted on that stance, or will claim you never made it. But the point is that if you want to proselytize your religion there are better ways of going about it rather than going on the offense to attack scientific knowledge.

You are the one who is claiming that scientists are stupid by your accusations that they have it all wrong.

Like Voil said, you seem to only be interested in cat fights. Religion appears to take a back seat to your need to stir up the kettle.

What? The only people who say that by creationism is those critics of creationism. By the bible there is missing information, you can't jump to saying "incest" just as you can't jump to saying it wasn't incest. As a mathmatical problem the equation is NEI (not enough information). Just as what the surface of pluto looks like is pure speculation, so is how life continued after Kane & Able & where their wives came from. That's if your a literalist, personaly I'm not concerning genesis, but let's not take speculation as scripture;^]

Abracadabra,

3183 characters later, you still haven't answer my question. Nothing I said in my OP is unscientific. The point that scientists can only assume that a fossil produced children which were different from it can't be denied. Why waste so much effort typing an "answer" that doesn't answer the question?



I'm not trying to sell anything, what I have done is prove that I have thought more about my beliefs than any of you have thought about yours. I presented my beliefs on micro-evolution clearly as I believe it works and as demonstrable science shows. I also understand evolution, which most of the people in this thread don't have a clue about. Yet, I will still be called the dumb/unthinking one, while the people who are simply parrots, repeating what they have seen others say will be called intelligent and informed. That's how it works, I know, but it's very unbecoming for so many to make such stupid arguments "good gene + good gene = bad gene!" and my absolute favorite "Free will requires that evolution happens, because a lizard must have wanted to fly to grow wings!" while I simply use facts and reason and still get lectured about how little I know. You and Voil are two of the most educated people here and neither one of you has even tried to refute my OP. The reason is clear, what I have said is 100% factual. You just don't like the conclusion that I reach from the evidence, so you call me stupid, delusional, fundie, etc.

Also, what right do you have to tell anyone how they should practice their religion?



Not true in the least, I have argued that Adam and Eve were the first people every single time the subject has come up. I'm at odds with many Christians on that, but I stick to that position. To claim that I have done otherwise is misremembering at best and a knowing lie at worst.

It is equally as plausible that the events in the Bible happened and are remembered to some degree or another by all cultures. To suggest that the aboriginies or Eskimos or South American Indians came up with a story similar to the Bible or even more impossibly, remember the same false story? That's just crazy talk.

Spider that ties into the previous explanation that the bible is a compilation of wifes tales told from generation to generation. Man existed a long lllloooonnnngggggg time before the bible was even a thought in someone's mind. To assume the compilation is that of old native folk lore would be correct. As you put it, the stories were there before the bible existed.

You haven’t proven anything to me. All you’ve done was manage to delude yourself a bit more.



You state things as though they are truths, but they are merely your unsubstantiated opinions based on nothing at all. I’ve discussed evolution with you in the past on many occasions. You’re gross misunderstanding of the topic is clearly evident to me. The fact that you think you understand it doesn’t impress me one iota. In fact, if you truly did understand it you would no longer question it.

Attempting to argue evolution with you is like attempting to argue quantum physics with my dog. (not meant as an insult, just a genuinely analogy)

And just to make you happy and address your points in the OP,…



Where’s your evidence and support for this bogus statement? You just made this up off the top of your head. What’s to disprove? Asking people to disprove things that have no evidence is nothing short of silly and you know it!

I can claim that I came form another planet and ask you to prove me wrong. You can’t do it. So does that make it true? Of course not! You know that reverse logic is impossible. You know that you can claim things that are untrue and they can’t be proven to be untrue. So your entire idea at the beginning to “prove you wrong” is a silly nose-thumbing tactic. Any logistician knows how absurd you are being by making such claims.



This is untrue and has been disproved. So there you go. We have witnessed such an event in plants, fruit flies, and viruses (all the time!) and many other animals. It's just a matter of looking up all the experiments and observations that have been done.

So there you are. You’ve already been disproved because you made the mistake of saying something that has already been confirmed to be otherwise.



You obviously haven’t looked hard enough.

There, you’ve been discredited with precisely the same amount of ‘evidence’ you’ve given for your claims. Plus the information is out there. I'm sure you can find it easily on the web if you really wanted to. I’m not going to bother looking it up for you. I have better things to do with my time. I've already seen these things for myself in labs so I'm not concerned with their proofs.

If this was true, the ancient remains in burial grounds would hold men and women like us today, they do not! So it can be seen the changes man has gone through over time already. If you want to continue to chase the tail and prove yourself wrong by your own answers then so be it. I cannot change your view but I will continue to believe that which is proven and right.

You forget that women have two X chromosome. The common chromosome is the X chromosome.

If Adam was the first human he would have two Y chromosomes then Eve would have an X and a Y chromosome since she is suppose to be based on Adam.

Can you prove that a square isn't a triangle? Yes, you can, therefore it is possible to prove a negative.

Have you ever seen a big dog? How about a dog that weighs 2000 pounds? Do you think that dogs could be bred to be that size? If evolution is true, then the answer is yes, but I think that it is impossible.

That's the crux of my point. We have bred fruit flies for years, they are always fruit flies. We have thousands of breeds of dogs and cats...they are all still dogs and cats. Your strawman about polyploidy is meaningless. Polyploidy is the result of a defect in the cell division of an organism. That isn't a gradule change that happens over centuries. Evolution happens to species, polyploidy happens to individuals. Scientists gerrymandered the definition of Evolution to include polyploidy, that doesn't make it so. It just means that they are desperate to find an example of cross genus speciation.

Yeah, because God can create a man from scratch, but God couldn't have manipulated the X/Y chromosomes of the woman to be X/X?