Quote:

Wrong. Maybe we could call this IFE, Irish_Farmer's Evolution. Evolution as understood by biologists does NOT require data to be created from scratch at all. It only requires change and whether this change comes from deactivating gene expression, activating a dormant gene, inserting bases, or shuffling bases around is IRRELEVANT.



Ok, so then that means you can find proof that a bacteria can become a man anywhere you want. Sounds convenient.

What I'm saying is that these different methods of mutation haven't led to any evolution (I'm talking about building up, not just change, because just regular old change doesn't explain how germs grew legs (yes I know germs didn't actually grow legs)) within actual creatures. I don't claim to know for sure why this is, but I think its because even the most simple of lifeforms are too complex to be able to be randomly rewritten to something that is more ordered or complex or whatever the word is than the original creature was.

Should I replace the word evolution with another term that doesn't just mean change, to make sure we're on the same page? Because if we're arguing that creatures can change, then we're both on the same side. I know animals can change, I just don't think that the kind of change we've observed can explain what evolution supposedly has done as a whole.

Quote:

Still wrong. Where did you get this idea in the first place?



I'll answer this in the next question. Short version: scientists.

Quote:

If they appeared out of nowhere we would have creationism, but you are right: they don't.



Compare the amount of genetic data in bacteria to that of, say, a human, or really any other complex creature (we could say bird if we really want). Obviously this genetic data came from somewhere. It had to be created randomly, but the point is that it had to be created. You say random chance did it, I say science doesn't know what did it at this time (since science is blind to God, which is ok for the sake of this argument). The point is that it came from somewhere. Am I wrong in assuming that this is what evolutionists believe? Or do you believe that the first living animal was extremely complex and contained all of the possible combinations of genetic data and slowly evolved down into all of the animals we see today?

Let's try an example. I'm a bird. First I evolve to lose my wings (over time, they shrink to nothingness), then I evolve to lose my feathers, and then I evolve to lose my beak, and then I evolve to lose my eyes. Tell me now, how all of these changes fall in the same category of a single cell becoming a person.

Would it not be fair to say that there are two kinds of mutations then? Because some mutations will cause this bird to become a wingless lump of featherless flesh (if it survives that long), and other mutations will cause lizards to grow feathers and beaks and specific lungs, and specific bone structure, and fly off.

This is why I say some mutations are relevant to evolution, and some are not. I don't see evolution simply as change, because some changes don't explain animals becoming more complex. I think the distinction is important. I also think that the only way you wouldn't want to distinguish the two is if you didn't think that there was evidence of the other kind happening (the kind I say is relevant to evolution). Otherwise even in that bird example, you can see this animal slowly degenerate into a useless lump of flesh and say, "Behold, the glory of evolution!"

edit:

Crap, I just saw phemox's post. I'll have to get back to that.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/19/06 04:49.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."