[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kamikaze


But I'm talking about physical change, not behaviorial evolution of whatnot... (it is largely physical change that creationists resist)

But behaviorial evolution sometimes leads to physical change and inadvertently affecting DNA. For example:

This century humans have become taller due to eating lotsa meat with steroids and other things (this is just an example). Now this has become sort of a "costum" amongst people and has been past on. Wether it is by capitalistic influence or your next door neighbour. It has become part of us.

And because of this behaviorial evolution the human DNA has changed. Human are born bigger, grow taller, etc then they used to.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Tiara


But behaviorial evolution sometimes leads to physical change and inadvertently affecting DNA. For example:

This century humans have become taller due to eating lotsa meat with steroids and other things (this is just an example). Now this has become sort of a "costum" amongst people and has been past on. Wether it is by capitalistic influence or your next door neighbour. It has become part of us.

And because of this behaviorial evolution the human DNA has changed. Human are born bigger, grow taller, etc then they used to.

Could I ask why then people in Africa and Asia are smaller? Are you saying they are't quite human yet? ('cuz their not as tall as the people in the USA normaly are)

Don't you think better nutrition is more a part of it?

[Warlock]

She did say it was an EXAMPLE not an "over all proven to effect every human on the planet" fact.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ


Could I ask why then people in Africa and Asia are smaller? Are you saying they are't quite human yet? ('cuz their not as tall as the people in the USA normaly are)

Don't you think better nutrition is more a part of it?

First of all it was an example.

Second of all, you just gave a second example:

Better nutrition. It does affect physical appearances throughout the generations. If two parents are living of rice and fish only their baby will most likely have less "healthy" DNA.

[Goober5000]

You're confusing nature with nurture.  A baby with tall genes (or "tall" DNA) that is malnourished throughout its life is going to be a short adult.  It has nothing to do with DNA being "changed" to "short" DNA (which doesn't happen anyway).

Breeding or "microevolution" is established as fact - the interaction and recombination of genes through two-parent reproduction.  What Christians have issue with is macroevolution - that random chance alone is responsible for the emergence of whole new species.  We accept microevolution as fact - we do not accept macroevolution, as governed by random chance, as fact.

[CP5670]

They are the same thing though. We just call lots of microevolution in series macroevolution.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Tiara


First of all it was an example.

Second of all, you just gave a second example:

Better nutrition. It does affect physical appearances throughout the generations. If two parents are living of rice and fish only their baby will most likely have less "healthy" DNA.

no no no no. That's not what I meant. The only less "healthy" thing about the baby is that it didn't get the right nutrition while in the womb. While the parents not getting them it does not effect the genes in that way.

[diamondgeezer]

OK, here's a question for the christians: in Januray, the world's first cloned human will be born. This embryo has grown from an egg 'tricked' into to thinking it had been fertilised. No sperm cells were involved, and yet the child is growing perfectly naturally in all other respects.

So basically, we're pretty much on a par with God now, right? I mean, is there anything else he can do that we can't?

[01010]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
OK, here's a question for the christians: in Januray, the world's first cloned human will be born. This embryo has grown from an egg 'tricked' into to thinking it had been fertilised. No sperm cells were involved, and yet the child is growing perfectly naturally in all other respects.

So basically, we're pretty much on a par with God now, right? I mean, is there anything else he can do that we can't?

Dance the funky chicken and not look like an idiot.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
OK, here's a question for the christians: in Januray, the world's first cloned human will be born. This embryo has grown from an egg 'tricked' into to thinking it had been fertilised. No sperm cells were involved, and yet the child is growing perfectly naturally in all other respects.

"tricked"

well, i'll believe it when i see it on the news
... in January
... when it's hatched

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara

We evolve in the simplest of things. Once you fall over something you'll watch out next time. Even that is a small example of evolving. And this is tought to the children who will learn more things then their parents. Evolving does not always involve DNA and stuff.

that's learning from mistakes, it's common sense, not evolution



so if some horny guy masturbates, he "evolves"
... oh, but what about when he's done... does he "devolve"!?
(sorry to use such an example, but it's the only example i could think of)



they say that you're always taller in the morning... so in the morning you're tall, and over the day you "devolve" slightly smaller... then overnight you "evolve" taller again.



... remember there's a difference between learning something, and evolving.

"knowing" not to put my hand on a hot stove... i didn't "evolve" that, i "learned" it... from experience



it's stupid, it's common sense.

[Ulundel]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So basically, we're pretty much on a par with God now, right? I mean, is there anything else he can do that we can't?

I think he'll be Santa Claus...THE santa claus

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Stealth
well, i'll believe it when i see it on the news
... in January
... when it's hatched

*shrugs*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2517351.stm

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by CP5670
They are the same thing though. We just call lots of microevolution in series macroevolution.

No, they aren't.  Microevolution is defined as combining genes from different parents in different combinations to produce variety in offspring.  With selective combination, some varieties become more distinct from others over time.  This is why we have so many breeds of dogs, but they are all the same species.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is defined as genetic mutation to produce entirely new species over time.  Keep in mind that different species cannot mate with each other and produce fertile offspring.  For a new species to be viable, it must have enough members to allow sufficient variety in genetic selection.  For a specific organism to be considered a new species, it must be different enough that existing species cannot mate with it and produce fertile offspring.  As you can see, we start running in circles here.  New species don't appear by themselves; they are introduced by God (or, if you prefer, some other intelligent designer...perhaps even humans will be able to create new species one day).

[Warlock]

hmmm little hands from the sky placing new animals and plants on the planet.........COOL!

[Goober5000]

Not currently.  Remember, God rested on the seventh "day".  No new species have been introduced since then.

[Warlock]

So I guess dinosaurs were day 3 eh ? Cromags and such day 4 ?

Those are some long ass days ya know

[Goober5000]

The days don't have to be 24-hour periods, just "stages" of creation.  With this interpretation, dinosaurs, Cro-Magnons, and modern humans were all created on the sixth day.

[Sesquipedalian]

*decides to stick his head into the thread again, hoping against all hope it hasn't devolved into another "Creationists" vs. "Evolutionists" debacle*



"Creationists": The Bible tells you nothing about how the creation was accomplished.  Literalism is not valid here.  The Church has always understood parts of the Bible to be non-literal, Genesis 1 and 2 especially included.  Origen, in the 2nd century, explicitly cites Genesis 1 and 2 in discussion of the non-literal interpretation of Scripture.  Augustine, the biggest name in Church history between Paul and the Reformation, was only converted after he learned of the allegorical method on understanding Scripture from Ambrose.  The New Testament writers used the Old Testament in re-interpretive, non-literal ways all the time.  The Old Testament never refers back to the Genesis account even once as a factual description.  The dogged literalism that has grasped right-wing churches in its clutches is the aberration of the Church's history, the unfortunate spin-off of the Enlightenment's stupid and narrow restriction of truth to residing only in literal statements of fact.  Truth is bigger than mere facts.  Grasp on to the much broader and deeper understanding of the Bible's truth that the Church has had all through it's long history.

"Evolutionists": Christianity is not tied to any particular scientific theory.  Just because evolution may indeed be the case does not mean that Christianity has been disproven.  Christianity is indifferent on such issues, because the Bible says nothing about how it all happened.  It has always been so.  Non-literalism isn't a recent invention of the Church to "deal with science," it's been around from the beginning.  Literalism is the odd one out.  If anyone wants to try to disprove Christianity, you'll need to find a better argument than this (despite the opinions of certain individuals around here).  Christianity is as compatible with Aristotelean spheres as with quantum mechanics, evolution or any theory that may come after, because it says nothing about them, it doesn't care.

[Kamikaze]

Well if Christians (in general) are indifferent to science, that's cool. But you must realize most christians are against evolution for some odd reason or another, so I argue and say "you're talking bull****" to these people.