Places to Chat
OK this is
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
OK this is
OK this is the new spot for creation vs. evolution. If someone else started one we will just have to pick.
submitted by Hannah R., age 13, New York
(August 20, 2008 - 11:05 am)
(August 20, 2008 - 11:05 am)
Was that a pun? And I didn't say anything about gravity, I was talking about creationisim and evolution.
(September 1, 2008 - 4:11 pm)
Small e evolution is kinda the same as large E Evolution. If the DNA changes over time, then that is large E Evolution!
And I don't think anyone calls it the "theory" of Evolution anymore.
(August 21, 2008 - 12:06 pm)
Whether they call it so or not, it still is a theory. And there IS a certain amount of fixity in DNA. Not everything can change. And besides that, I beleive small e evolution happens within the animal's lifetime? And even if it doesn't, it certainly isn't "over time."
(August 21, 2008 - 5:33 pm)
See my last post.
(August 22, 2008 - 4:24 pm)
I'm guessing that you get most of your information from the book of Genesis. This is the same book that said woman was created to serve man. I personaly wouldn't take creditable information from a book that said that, and I know what I'm talking about. I've read Genesis. And, Emily, they have found fossils that date up to 1 billion years ago. I'm talking about the algae that once grew in Australia a REALLY long time ago. And I totally agree with The Man For Aeiou who said radio carbon dating is acurate. What if evolution and the Bible are true. And sure, it's fun to learn about how humans came about (however that may be). But how 'bout we live in the present and not believe every thing we read (Bible or science journals)?
(August 22, 2008 - 3:24 pm)
TMFA, I notice that you are always making statements about Evolution without anything to support them. Why should I believe that these things are proven just because you say so? What's the proof? And to Isa A., the Bible does NOT say that women are second-class citizens or anything of that sort. It just says that wives should obey their husbands, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. And besides, that is changing the subject. Oh, and do a little reading, because there is a controversy about the dating methods. And please, people, read Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation . Paige? Shannon? Are you there? Just wondering.
(August 23, 2008 - 6:15 pm)
I do give proof.
(August 24, 2008 - 1:45 pm)
Really sorry Emily. I was at a week long camp... Sorry!! I'll help you now!!
(August 25, 2008 - 4:42 pm)
There is no controversy surrounding Carbon dating, unless you create it. What would you like to have proof for? It can be supplied, if you ask for specifics. As for the book, I'm not going to believe anything that suggests UFOs are responsible for ancient technology.
Try researching Darwin's Finches, or Peppered Moths. Even the Wikipedia article on evolution has about 200 references, and is locked down to protect it from unauthorized edits.
(September 3, 2008 - 11:43 am)
Oh, peppered moths. I've heard that one. However It has a problem. but tell me anyway, and I'll tell you about what the problem is.
(September 3, 2008 - 12:45 pm)
Ok, it sounds like you're familiar, so here's he short version.
Peppered moths live in England. They have the genes for dark brown, white, or a speckled mix of the two. Before the Industrial Revolution, most of the moths were white or speckled, because this let them live on white trees, that were partly covered in lichen. The black moths exist, but they're more likely to be eaten because they stand out. Industrial Revolution comes, and the trees become covered in soot, lichen dies. But the moths don't die, because natural selection favored the brown ones. Soon, all the moths have turned brown! Today, with environmental cleanups, the moths are back to white.
What's the problem?
(September 3, 2008 - 6:22 pm)
Here is the problem. A: Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks. Two, exactly two of them have been seen on tree trunks in the last forty years. B: The photographer actually glued the moth onto the tree trunks to take those two photos you've probably seen. Moths have no tendancy to choose matching backgrounds. C: The same population shift happened in the US, where there was no change in lichens. And it is important to remember that both varieties existed before the Industrial Revolution.
And again, my information comes from Unlocking the Keys to Creation.
(September 4, 2008 - 8:06 pm)
A: Peppered moths do rest on tree trunks. See the Wikipedia article on Peppered Moth Evolution.
"The photographs in Micheal Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action
are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of
moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no
different than the "staged" photographs."
It's hard to photograph a small moth resting on a nice tree easily.
"And it is important to remember that both varieties existed before the Industrial Revolution. "
Why? That just shows how genetic mutation results in variation that might not be fatal, and will be just detrimental until it happens to fit. Just chance.
(September 6, 2008 - 10:54 am)
I'll have to do some research, because one of those sources is wrong. But anyway: The peppered moth story does not even suggest Evolution, because there was no actual mutation, only that the numbers of the two moth varieties shifted.
(September 6, 2008 - 6:13 pm)
"only that the numbers of the two moth varieties shifted."
But that's the whole point! Natural Selection worked, changing the moths so that they survived, adapted! If the trees, lichens, etc. had stayed darkly colored, eventually we would only have brown moths. The mutation had previously occured; it was the differences in color. The genes for melanism, I believe.
(September 7, 2008 - 5:41 pm)