Do you believe this?

[imported_MoonlightGraham]

How could macro evolution not have been proven? Look at giraffes. Only the best adapted, are going to survive to a changing environment. Some environments might favor a tall animal so they can get leaves from a tall tree, others might favor a smaller quicker animal to hide from predators. If the 1st scenario is the case, your gonna have taller animals because only the tall ones will live to reproduce. if the other is the case then the smaller, quicker animals will reproduce, and there offspring will be similar to them.

[sup-rbeast]

The proof of evolution lies in genes and chromosomes...nearly if not all living things are built of the same material (DNA)...different species share common chromosomes and genes...these facts can not be refuted...and for me that in itself is enough proof that we share common ancestors with other animals...thus, proving that we evolved.

[imported_GC1]

I don't think anyone here can or will even attempt to deny Micro evolution. You can see it occur even when you breed two dufferent kinds of dogs (peekapoo for example) etc. Or as you say in adaptation of a species to it's environment.

But to believe in Macro evolution you have to have more faith than to believe in a God who spoke and created all things ex nihilo.

To carry a belief in Macro you have to believe in a god many call "chance" that caused a "big bang" and then out of this big bang came planets and stars. These planets were by chance spherical in shape, then by chance a rock becomes a living organism that evolves into higher life forms, by chance some of them decide thay need legs, eyes, ears, wings, etc. So over countless millions of years chance causes these processes to occur.

By chance the eye develops over eons, yet until an eye is 100% formed it is useless, but this poor critter still insists it needs the eye even though for millions of years it is still blind and then FINALLY by chance the eye is fully formed and the persistant creature is able to see.

Or a birds wings. This critter feels the need for some wings to fly and over millions of years runs around on spindly legs, all the while evading larger, faster creatures who should easily eat them and put them to extinction, yet by chance they eventually get a fully formed set of wings and now, instead of having to outrun all these bigger, faster ones on those spindly pencil legs they can now have the ability to simply fly away.

It's just much more simple and logical to believe in an Almighy God, who, in His great power and genius spoke by His own authority and created all that there is.


Psa 2:1 Why do the nations conspire

and the peoples plot in vain?

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand

and the rulers gather together

against the Lord

and against his Anointed One.

Psa 2:3 "Let us break their chains,"? they say,

"and throw off their fetters."?



Psa 2:4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;

the Lord scoffs at them.

Psa 2:5 Then he rebukes them in his anger

and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

Psa 2:6 "I have installed my King

on Zion, my holy hill."

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.

Jhn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The proof of evolution lies in genes and chromosomes...nearly if not all living things are built of the same material (DNA)...different species share common chromosomes and genes...these facts can not be refuted...and for me that in itself is enough proof that we share common ancestors with other animals...thus, proving that we evolved. </div></div>

Maybe it just proves we share the same Creator and He used the same formula for DNA in His creation?

[sup-rbeast]

It also proves that we are biologically related to animals as a scientific fact

[Gotch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DaneCook</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How could macro evolution not have been proven? Look at giraffes. Only the best adapted, are going to survive to a changing environment. Some environments might favor a tall animal so they can get leaves from a tall tree, others might favor a smaller quicker animal to hide from predators. If the 1st scenario is the case, your gonna have taller animals because only the tall ones will live to reproduce. if the other is the case then the smaller, quicker animals will reproduce, and there offspring will be similar to them. </div></div>

Not trying to be nasty but I don't see how that has anything at all to do with macro-evolution.

1. Mutation (micro-evolution) fully explains the above example.

2. Mutations tend to be negative in nature the vast majority of the time. Therefore as GC1 points out with his post it seems unlikely that a species could develop the unique qualities of a Giraffe which would require many, many, random mutations to obtain without the neg. mutations (which occur much more often that positive ones) from driving the species in extinction.

3. In this scenario (above) we should be overwhelmed with intermediary fossil examples. We are not.

[Gotch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It also proves that we are biologically related to animals as a scientific fact </div></div>

Of course, but that is not evidence of actual evolution any more than it's evidence of an intelligent creator.

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It also proves that we are biologically related to animals as a scientific fact </div></div>

Yes, I guess it does. Maybe below from a former evolutionist will help. This is what I believe convinced him:

Evolution had a very serious problem in the 1970's. There wasn't one piece of biological evidence supporting the evolution of life. Then someone discovered in the late 1970's that every living organism on this planet has the same base strand of DNA. Evolutionists quickly grabbed hold of this as biological proof that we all have one common ancestor. It became their biological banner.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability. So, instead of blindly swallowing this claim, I decided to analyze the claim with the use of genetics and mathematics to see if it really proves evolution or does it actually prove creation (remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power. For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power. It actually works out to the advantage of the evolutionists giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism. To do this you subtract the number of zeros in one billion (9) from the exponent 32. This equals 23, so we still have 122 x 10 to the 23rd power possible DNA strands that should have come into existence at the same time.

Next we make another very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction. That leaves us with 122 x 10 to the 14th power which is 122 with 14 zeros behind it. It would look like this: 12,200,000,000,000,000. There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today.

Then how do you get one base strand in all organisms?

Let's say we go where man has never gone before to the planet I mentioned on the page for the feasibility analysis. When we decide to use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, would you reinvent a new base strand of DNA for each new organism or use the same base strand and simply make the modifications and additional strands needed for each new organism? Of course you are not going to reinvent the DNA strand every time you create a new organism. That would be stupid. So every organism on our planet would have the same base strand. Therefore, a single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution. On the other hand, I guess this does mean that we all had one common ancestor...God. See, we evolutionists were partly right. :-)

[sup-rbeast]

All of what you guys say is true...it is a way to reconcile science and religion...but still of all the combinations of chromosomes and genes etc etc...a human and a chimp share the same combination barring 1 chromosome...so your math probability makes a strong case for evolution of species.

[Gotch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The proof of evolution lies in genes and chromosomes...nearly if not all living things are built of the same material (DNA)...different species share common chromosomes and genes...these facts can not be refuted...and for me that in itself is enough proof that we share common ancestors with other animals...thus, proving that we evolved. </div></div>

In fact if evolutionary theory is to be believed we all (trees, worms, people, horses, etc.) evolved from the same nonliving pond slim that was struck by lighting and formed life. That's a simplified version but that's it in a nutshell (pun intended). To believe that this theory which has failed time and again in the lab and which has little to no supporting evidence is fact requires a huge leap of faith IMO.