days of creation

[Teckor]

armany said:

Microevolution, evolution within a species involving changes of a smaller nature, occurs, but, as Falklands said, macroevolution (the evolution of entire species into something totally different) is a leap of faith. Make that blind faith!

One small problem though that I see with that arguement, your still agreeing to evolution.

Whether it's micro- or macro-, it's still evolution. Something though which I'd like to also add is that evolution not only requires an increase in DNA or gentic material, but it also requires new genetic material. Which as earlier pointed out hasn't happened. We see a loss of genetic information much more frequently.

Although, we have seen slight increases in genetic information, mind you though that these lead in all cases known so far, to one of many syndrome's and it doesn't create new genetic information. ie: downs syndrome, etc.

Even gentic resistances are almost always either a loss of gentic information or the addition of already pre-existing plasmids which had been contained in another cell of some sort.

[falklands]

teckor said:

One small problem though that I see with that arguement, your still agreeing to evolution.

Whether it's micro- or macro-, it's still evolution. Something though which I'd like to also add is that evolution not only requires an increase in DNA or gentic material, but it also requires new genetic material. Which as earlier pointed out hasn't happened. We see a loss of genetic information much more frequently.

Although, we have seen slight increases in genetic information, mind you though that these lead in all cases known so far, to one of many syndrome's and it doesn't create new genetic information. ie: downs syndrome, etc.

Even gentic resistances are almost always either a loss of gentic information or the addition of already pre-existing plasmids which had been contained in another cell of some sort.

I cannot over-emphasize the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. It is macroevolution that adds information to the creature's genetic code. Microevolution does not add information, it simply varies within the genetic code already in the creature. Do not lump them both together. Microevolution has been designed by God to let creatures adapt to their surroundings...surely you're not going to deny the fact that viruses can vary in their genetic code? Macroevolution is completely different. A virus cannot change into a bacterium. A virus still remains a virus, even though it can change to a limited extent. Microevolution does not contradict Creation in any manner.

[Teckor]

falklands said:

I cannot over-emphasize the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. It is macroevolution that adds information to the creature's genetic code. Microevolution does not add information, it simply varies within the genetic code already in the creature. Do not lump them both together. Microevolution has been designed by God to let creatures adapt to their surroundings...surely you're not going to deny the fact that viruses can vary in their genetic code? Macroevolution is completely different. A virus cannot change into a bacterium. A virus still remains a virus, even though it can change to a limited extent. Microevolution does not contradict Creation in any manner.

Then don't call it "microevolution". I'd prefer it then if you refer to it as "mutation" or "adaptation".

Here is why. Evolution is clumped together as the general change of gentic information in a creature to cause it to become more advanced. Plus, any evolutionist could argue that microevolution would lead eventually to macroevolution. (and it is quite possible that someone would pull this arguement on you)

My opinion on it.

[falklands]

teckor said:

Then don't call it "microevolution". I'd prefer it then if you refer to it as "mutation" or "adaptation".

Here is why. Evolution is clumped together as the general change of gentic information in a creature to cause it to become more advanced. Plus, any evolutionist could argue that microevolution would lead eventually to macroevolution. (and it is quite possible that someone would pull this arguement on you)

My opinion on it.

Ok then, I'll call it "genetic adaptation" or something similar. Note that "mutation" is something different from either macroevolution or adaptation. Darwin used the "microevolution-leads-to-macroevolution" in his own hypothesis, but it led to that impossibly improbable situation (adding genetic information) that he did not forsee before the rise of genetics.

[Armany]

teckor said:

One small problem though that I see with that arguement, your still agreeing to evolution.

Whether it's micro- or macro-, it's still evolution. Something though which I'd like to also add is that evolution not only requires an increase in DNA or gentic material, but it also requires new genetic material. Which as earlier pointed out hasn't happened. We see a loss of genetic information much more frequently.

Although, we have seen slight increases in genetic information, mind you though that these lead in all cases known so far, to one of many syndrome's and it doesn't create new genetic information. ie: downs syndrome, etc.

Even gentic resistances are almost always either a loss of gentic information or the addition of already pre-existing plasmids which had been contained in another cell of some sort.

No, I'm not agreeing to Darwinian Evolution. That's a rather harsh conclusion that is in no way true.

Microevolution does occur, but does not involve a change in species. For example, there are many breeds of dogs. You have small ones, tall ones, short-coated ones, and long-haired ones. Are all dogs still of the same species? Yes. Members of the same species can reproduce with each other. All dogs can, theoretically at least, though not all times practically, reproduce with each other. Are they amazingly different, though.

This difference is caused by thousands of years of breeding. A certain type of dog is sought, a breeder works at selecting the appropriate specimens and carrying on their genes, and, after generations of dogs, a different dog breed is formed. Still the same dog, but the dog breed has undergone microevolution. Not too much radical genetic change, if any (I'm not an expert at genetics, though ;D).

Call it what you want, but microevolution does occur, to a smaller extent in nature. The term "evolution" only refers to a gradual change over time; I believe that the type of evolution that you are accusing me of supporting is Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution or whatever they call their latest lie.

No type of evolution, however, could force change in simple organisms to evolve them to the point where they radically change genetic structure.

[falklands]

Quite right, Armany.

[Teckor]

If you have your arguement down pat then thats great but I seriously dislike the idea of agreeing to microevolution b/c of the fact that it can either be misinterpreted or misleading.

But it is good to know that at least you have it all sorted out for you.

[heartofgold]

I am a firm believer in evolution. Just not the kind your talking about. I am convinced that monkeys evolved from us. Think about it. Monkeys are a lot smarter than us, they had the good sense to grow fur so they wouldn't be cold, and they got us to stick them in zoos where they get free food!! I mean, being a monkey is like every humans dream!! No work, free food, and fur!!

That was a joke, by the way. I don't believe in Evolution.

An important thing to realize is the fact that God made grass on Day 3, but he made the Sun, etc. on Day 4. Plants can live for a day (maybe up to 3 or 4 days) without sunlight, but past that they die.

But another question you can ask is how can you have days without the sun?
This whole thing is technical and none of us are going to know for sure. I never worried about too much.

[Teckor]

But a day isn't measured by just the sun. Take up north (or down south) by the poles, their daylight hours are either extremely long or non-existant. Yet they have days.

A day is simply a set timeframe that occurs, like a century or a second or even a minute, just a day has a more diffinitive timeframe that involves a celestial body (the Sun).

[heartofgold]

teckor said:

But a day isn't measured by just the sun. Take up north (or down south) by the poles, their daylight hours are either extremely long or non-existant. Yet they have days.

A day is simply a set timeframe that occurs, like a century or a second or even a minute, just a day has a more diffinitive timeframe that involves a celestial body (the Sun).

But the bible says that there was "evening and morning the first day." But how can you have evening and morning if there is no sun?

[New Titania (TD)]

Just to make a statement about the evening and morning....the Jews, because of this statement, believe that the day begins with sunset and ends with sunset because of this scripture.

[falklands]

td said:

Just to make a statement about the evening and morning....the Jews, because of this statement, believe that the day begins with sunset and ends with sunset because of this scripture.

...hence they celebrate Sabbath on Friday night.

[Teckor]

By whatever time the evening or morning is counted as.

Otherwise, u got me there.

[Emory B]

I actually have quite a few people at my church that speak and read Greek, Hebrew, and English. One of them told me that a more literal translation of it was a passage of time.


well, there is my two cents

great board- love reading the arguments