I am proof there is evolution!!!

From a crazy self destructive kid, to a reasonable human being.


I evolved, straight through dogmatic dependencies, and onto authenticity....and guess what???

No divine intervention...no burning bush, no light bulb moment....nothing...AMAZING!!

Then man was the defective prototype and woman is the perfect design. lol

Your backwards thinking is hidden compliment to women.

Spider which came first in evolution sex or asexual reproduction?

spider, since you were saying that 50% human dna can be found in plants, to think of an organism over millions of years changing form to look like something else is not so hard to imagine. Life forms are similar in many ways. They fight to survive and survival being more basic than any taught behavior will happen no matter what the organism has to do. It will happen more and more as we record the history of this planet. If our records last.

If we take the bible at face value, man came from incestuous activity between mother/son, sister/brother, father/daughter, cousins/cousins, etc....so forth. This is somehow more acceptable to bible thumpers than evolution of organisms over millions of years??????

I'm not attempting to disprove evolution, not in the least. I am not qualified to do that. What I am trying to do is show that Creationists can take the same evidence that Darwinists use and come to a different conclusion. The conclusions are entirely dependant on personal convictions. I have thought about this, I'm sure many of you will continue to call me stupid and uneducated. I have shown that Creationist aren't afraid of the facts, it's the conclusions we disagree on. I don't believe in evolution, because fossils are NOT proof. They can't be, we can't know of the fossil produced any children or if the fossil had any children which were different from it. Therefore, all fossils are is proof that life existed in the past and died. That's all fossils can logically prove. So please everyone, don't think I am attacking Evolution. I have simply stated that I believe in Creationism, that I believe in micro-evolution and that I don't believe that Evolution has the scientific support to convice me that it is the truth.

Adam and Eve were married, so the sons wouldn't have had any children with their mother. Marriage to a parent wasn't allowed at any time by God. Marriage to a sibling was allowed. Sorry if you find that distasteful, but it's the truth.

When you actually get close to what I have said, I'll let you know.

It would not have ensured perpetuation of the human race as genetically they would have been born with deformities and mutations apart from the illness of the concept.

No, they wouldn't have. This is very simply genetics, you can learn it in any highschool freshman biology text book. I'm sorry that you don't grasp the concept, but that's not my fault.

No evolution just jess.....

I GIVE UP, THE WAY THE FORUM WORKS, I CAN'T GET A MENDEL'S CUBE TO SHOW UP PROPERLY. I MIGHT MAKE A WEBSITE OR AN IMAGE TO DISPLAY LATER. IF YOU HAVE TAKEN A HIGHSCHOOL BIOLOGY COURSE, YOU SHOULD REMEMBER THIS THING


CreativeSoul / Dragoness,

Let's go to the cube!

Let's assume we are looking at the genes for...eye color. G1 is dominate, G2 is recessive. Top line is father, side is mother.

X = Brown
Y = Blue

First, let's assume that Adam and Eve both had brown eyes.

.......G1...G2
.......X....X
....|----|----|
G1 X|.XX.|.XX.|
....|----|----|
G2 X|.XX.|.XX.|
....|----|----|

They would both produce brown eyed children. The cube shows that they have a 100% chance of producing a child with brown eyes.

Many generations later, one woman meets a man who has blue eyes, due to the creation of a recessive gene that causes eyes to be blue. Blue eyes are recessive, so two blue eye genes are required to make a blue eyed child. Since the mother has no blue eye gene, her children would not have blue eyes, but they would carry the gene for blue eyes.

.......G1...G2
.......Y....Y
....|----|----|
G1 X|.XY.|.XY.|
....|----|----|
G2 X|.XY.|.XY.|
....|----|----|

We see here that this union has a 100% chance of producing a brown eyed child who carries the blue eyed gene.

Now let's take the example further. Let's say that "X" is a healthy gene for hearing and "Y" is a defective recessive gene that makes the possessor deaf. Adam and Eve don't possess such a gene (they were perfect), therefore their children wouldn't be deaf.

.......G1...G2
.......X....X
....|----|----|
G1 X|.XX.|.XX.|
....|----|----|
G2 X|.XX.|.XX.|
....|----|----|

This union will produce only children who can hear, because neither parent has the recessive "Y" gene.

But many generations later, a brother and sister get married and unfortunately, they both carry the recessive "Y" gene.

.......G1...G2
.......X....Y
....|----|----|
G1 X|.XX.|.XY.|
....|----|----|
G2 Y|.XY.|.YY.|
....|----|----|

It's 25% likely that this union will produce a deaf child. It is 50% likely that this union will produce a child who can hear, but carries the gene that causes deafness. It's also 25% likely that the child will be able to hear and won't carry the deafness gene.

I hope you can see that genetic defects, the accumlation of which is called inbreeding, is caused by an accumlation of detrimental recessive genes, not by the duplication of funtioning genes (dominate or recessive).

So you are agreeing with me that incestuous beginning to man, mother/son, sister/brother, father/daughter would not have ensured the perpetuation of the human race, it is in all high school freshman text books and I am not understanding........... what?????

Spider wrote:
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?

By your past post and by this logic women are recessive.

I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous statement

First of off, you don't understand that while a parent and child can have children, that was never God's plan. Humans started out marrying their sisters/brothers. Drop the father/daughter crap, I have corrected you on that two times (this is the third) already.

No, gender isn't dominate / recessive. It's determined by the fact that half of all sperm have an X and half have a Y chromosome. Whichever one is the best swimmer wins.

I believe in evolution as a creational force potentiated by God's power to create life. He allows species, from time to time, to jump from one level to a higher level of specialization in which this specie can adapt better to the surrounding enviroenment.

The key word is "believe". You have one belief, I have a different one. Which one of us is right? That's the point of this thread, we all think about our beliefs and we all have our own beliefs. So why should anyone tell another that they are stupid because they look at all the evidence and come to a different conclusion than their own?

Anyways...welcome back man, I haven't seen you in awhile.

First of off, you don't understand that while a parent and child can have children, that was never God's plan. Humans started out marrying their sisters/brothers. Drop the father/daughter crap, I have corrected you on that two times (this is the third) already.

Spider would anyone consider marrying their sister? Have you thought about the deformaties and health hazards of inbreeding.

I had a dog that was inbreed and we had to put it to sleep because of myriad of health problems cause by inbreeding.

You can't propose that humans came from a brother marrying a sister and reproducing.

Thanks for the welcome.
Once again I have to agree with you. We come to the conclusions that each one of us can after a careful analysis of the circumstances.

I hope u r doing fine as well as your children.

God bless you