Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Evolution

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on November 8, 1999 14:10:01 UTC

: bzrd here: : Micro-evolution can be characterized as variation within a species; it is considered as much a fact of nature as gravity. Macro-evolution (the origin of life from inert matter and origin of species from precursor species) is only a theory. There has NEVER been an observation of macro-evolution. There is not a single universally accepted transformational form known in the fossil record. There is not any known mechanism whereby genetic information can increase in a species over time. If this were any other science, Darwinism would have been discarded 100 yrs ago, but it still persists, more as a dogma than a scientific theory. People don't want to discard evolution. It allows them to do away with God and any semblance of absolute truth. For if Darwin was wrong, then the only other alternative is Creationism.

: Greg: : Excuse my misunderstanding of what was being refered to by Macro Evolution. I assumed that micro and macro were being used in the manner in which I most commonly appreciate them, which is in reference to scale, macro being of astronomical scale.

: Even without the observation of any actual "missing links", the presence of the Same chromosomes in our DNA as are in the plant, aquatic, reptilian, animal, and mammalian aspect of our heritage can only be explained through the Theory of Evolution. I'll be more then happy to listen to any explaination you may have as to why God would have felt I needed the Same chromosome as a plant if I did not have a plant somewhere in my past heritage. Or a fish. Or a reptile. Or any of the other myriad variety of species that I happen to share the Same chromosomes with.

: bzrd here: : All living things have chromosomes. To some extent all living things share genetic information; for ex. the ability to produce ATP, or the enzyme DNA hydrogenase etc. There is a commonality in nature which is indicative of a common Creator; why would God create a plant that uses chromosomes to pass on genetic information and some other means [of genetics] in animals? It is known for ex. that man and chimpanzees are 98% simular genetically speaking, indeed, we are very simular phenotypically. However, if you consider the mutation rate of the chimp genome, and that the 2% difference represents 22,000 neucleotides [base pairs] then extrapolate back in time, you will find that our common ancester lived about 2,000,000,000 yrs ago. Additionally, there has yet to be observed a single point mutation that results in an increase in information. I am not saying that God could not have used evolution as a means of Creation; but why do we assume that He did, when the evidence is to the contrary?

: Greg: : The evidence is not to the contrary. You assume it is based on our lack of information, not on the information available. It is not that all life has chromosomes, it is that they are the Same chromosomes. Some lower mammalian species have the Same chromosomes, some do not. The ones that do, have the Same chromosomes as the animal species that we share the Same chromosomes with, which have the Same chromosomes as the reptilian species that we share chromosomes with, which have the Same chromosomes as the Aquatic Species that we share chromosomes with, which have the Same chromosomes as the plant species that we share chromosomes with. Thus we can tell by who has the Same chromosomes and who does not, where the branches of Evolution took place, and who we are linked to through our Evolutionary Heritage. All living things only share genetic information from the common link in their heritage, which at some point is common to all Life, but only the common link is shared. That is what genes are all about and what makes for the myriad variety of Life. :o)

bzrd here: I believe what you are referring to is genetic convergence. I am not sure how one would use convergence as a means of supporting Darwinism. For ex. how does Neanderthal fit into the evolutionary paradigm? Contrary to the efforts of past researchers to make these individuals out to be apes, we have found that they buried their dead, practiced metallurgy, had larger brains, used art as a means of expression, almost certainly possesed language skills, had better teeth, more efficient enzyme systems, stronger bones and quite possibly lived longer. Yet according to the evolutionary time-scale they pre-dated us by many millenia. Neanderthal presents a significant dillema for the evolutionists; if they were our ancestors, then we have de-evolved, if they are not our ancestors, where did we come from?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins