Evolution Article

**imported_elp6n** · June 12th, 2007, 11:49 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Counts</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mutation does not equal evolution. </div></div>

Mutation in itself is not evolution BUT you have to have mutation in order to have evolution along with enviromental factors that favor a mutation over the same crecher without that mutation

</div></div>
Exactly! That why I refer to sustained mutation.
A single mutated tadpole isn't evolution - it could be a screw up to die off and have no benefit to the species. But a single mutated tadpole whose mutation poses benefits, and creates more tadpoles of that kind because it survives better - that's the beginning of evolution.

**Gotch** · June 12th, 2007, 12:18 PM

No.....in the end you have to have that species to species leap for the evolutionary theory to be correct. The only means by which evolution can explain the variety of species is untold numbers of species to species leaps. We have no real evidence of that ever happening. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

A species can mutate till the cows come home but until the cows turn into something other than cows you still have nothing but inter-species mutation, which does not explain the variety of species and which is not evolution.

**imported_Counts** · June 12th, 2007, 12:29 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No.....in the end you have to have that species to species leap for the evolutionary theory to be correct. The only means by which evolution can explain the variety of species is untold numbers of species to species leaps. We have no real evidence of that ever happening. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

A species can mutate till the cows come home but until the cows turn into something other than cows you still have nothing but inter-species mutation, which does not explain the variety of species and which is not evolution.

</div></div>

Horses and Donkeys, Lions and Tigers - There are 2 examples of different species that can still inter-breed. Lung fish have gills but do not need to be in the water all the time due to a being able to get oxigan out of the air (make me think of a jump from fish to anfibian)

If you are looking for old Betsy to have a calf that is NOT a cow it anit going to happen it would take 1000000's of gererations for that kind of think to happen

**Gotch** · June 12th, 2007, 12:53 PM

Horses and donkeys are both members of the same genus (equus if memory serves) Tigers and lions are too of course. No big mystery nor any evidence for species to species evolution there. Not to mention that nearly all such off-spring are sterile

The Lungfish is actually more problematic for the evolutionist than it is evidence to support his theory. The fossil record shows the lungfish appearing suddenly. No transitional forms are available to support adequately the theory of its evolution. But admitting there might be transitional life forms undiscovered, how would the lungfish arrive according to the theory of evolution?

A non-lungfish interacting with environmental change turns into a lungfish yet all other internal organs, egg laying habits and functions remain completely in common with other fish? Why has this transitional creature remained unchanged for all these millions of years?

**imported_Counts** · June 12th, 2007, 01:30 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why has this transitional creature remained unchanged for all these millions of years? </div></div>

Easy answer is that there have been no Mutations that have benifited that version over one without that mutation.

**Gotch** · June 12th, 2007, 06:05 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Counts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Easy answer is that there have been no Mutations that have benifited that version over one without that mutation.</div></div>

Not so simple though. Why would both the lungfish and the coelacanth remain exactly today as the fossil record shows them 60 million years ago yet according to evolutionist theory other branches of these same creature mutated over and over again to create other entire species and genus? Why would one branch mutate many, many times and another none at all? While we're at it where is the fossil record to support further transitions by any branch either of these FISH? Plenty of fossil's of the two as we find them today exist but no transitional fossils exist.

Therefore we are left with a huge leap of faith by the evolutionist.

**imported_Counts** · June 13th, 2007, 08:31 AM

I am not an expert by any means but from what I remember (I did doubble check to make sure I was not talking out of my rear end LOL) the LobeFish is an ansester of the Lobe Fish and there are slight differances in Lunfish from Africa and lungfish in South America.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">according to evolutionist theory other branches of these same creature mutated over and over again to create other entire species and genus? </div></div>

No this is NOT what the evolutionist theory says.....Just that the Lungfish was PROBABLY on the same Branch as the animals that first lived out of the water (Not a direct ansester more like a couson if you want to think about it like a family tree)

**imported_ut1** · June 13th, 2007, 01:08 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No.....in the end you have to have that species to species leap for the evolutionary theory to be correct. The only means by which evolution can explain the variety of species is untold numbers of species to species leaps. We have no real evidence of that ever happening. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

A species can mutate till the cows come home but until the cows turn into something other than cows you still have nothing but inter-species mutation, which does not explain the variety of species and which is not evolution.

</div></div>
Exactly. You have a bunch of different breeds of dogs and cats, but they're still dogs and cats.

Show me a frog that evolved into a mammal and I'll be impressed. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

**sup-rbeast** · June 13th, 2007, 08:45 PM

Not exactly a frog that has turned into a mammal...but how bout a reptile-bird hybrid..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19208580/

**Gotch** · June 14th, 2007, 07:05 AM

The whole feathered dinosaur debate is actually dividing many in the scientific community right now. Other than it's size this is really no different than any of the other claimed feathered dino discoveries.

Here is part of a letter written by Storrs Olson, the Smithsonian's leading expert on birds and bird fossils. It was addressing "The National Geographic Society":

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age ? the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode."