Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
I've heard rants and raves about this subject on other forums, so I figured I'd bring the disease here. Please, though:
If you want to argue a point, don't turn this into a flame war. Seriously, just look at philosophy, facts, etc. NOT who has the better insults.
Just to make things clear: I'm for the Creation side of this, and yes I know, there's also an Intelligent Design part arising among scientists. However, I see this as a half-assed attempt to say 'We were created... but not by God.'
I put it in the polls, though, just in case.
So vote, then speak your piece!
Edited and added poll choices. March 25, 2011. ~Tombow
Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
Okay, I know I double posted, but the damn thing won't let me edit the first post - so if any Mod happens to see this, please delete the above post.
Now, getting back to what I was talking about:
When you mentioned that changes between species happen over a long period of time, that doesn't add up. You see, mutations are almost always harmful (I think only two beneficial mutations have been recorded in known history - Sickle-Cell Anemia and something else.)
*Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionary spokesman of mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).
I also point to carcinogens. Carcinogens are extremely harmful products usually created by humans that can cause cancer in other organisms. The interesting thing is this: They do so by interfering with the way DNA replicates, creating massive mutations. If mutations were beneficial, don't you think evolutionists would be lobbying for more of these elements in nature. Why, then, are we avoiding them like the plague? Because they cause cancer, a disease.
There is also another way to mutate yourself: Radiation. Why, then, don't people go running to the nearest nuclear plant and roll in the radioactive byproducts? Because all you will get is cancer, leiukemia, (I hope I spelled that right) and other 'evolutionary advances'. Strange, because if mutations are beneficial in any way, why aren't there better and better animals springing out of Three Mile Island, the nuclear tests around the Bikini islands, and such?
BECUASE MUTATIONS ARE ONLY HARMFUL. You can compare mutation to opening up your operating system's source code, and then deleting three letters. Just three letters, no more. Then replace them with "Z X B". Will your computer still run? Not correctly. And there is absolutely NO chance of your computer running faster than before.
The only way humans have not been wiped from the earth by genetic load (The accumulation of mildly harmful or dormant mutations in the genome.) is that our body adapts! When you get cancer, you will be given chemotherapy. The reason chemotherapy works is NOT because it kills the cancer, it's because it mutates the ends of your telomeres, (The 'head' and 'tail' of DNA) making the mutation obvious to your immune system, which then proceeds to kill it.
So - in conclusion, Mutations are not beneficial, they are only harmful. I remember mentioning Sickle-Cell Anemia, the one 'beneficial' mutation? I correct myself. That is not a beneficial mutation, it's anemia. Anemia is when your blood cells cannot get enough oxygen to the body - the byproduct of this is that Malaria spores cannot germinate on the mutated blood cells. However, that malaria-immune person also tires more easily, can't work as hard, and gets out of breath faster than normal people. If that's beneficial, please tell me how.
And another thing: You mentioned snowflakes as how order can arise out of chaos. Not true. Snowflakes do have order to them, but they get this ordered structure by using the kinetic energy in a snowstorm. If it happened otherwise, it would be in violation of the Law of Entropy.
And finally: someone mentioned before how the appendix and other organs are useless. Not true. The appendix is like a holding cell for infectious organisms: The immune system takes them there and kills them. Please explain how this could have evolved. If the immune system just 'evolved' the instructions to bring all infectious agents to the appendix, it would be quite useless without an appendix, wouldn't it? And the reason blood vessels cross inside your eye is obvious: If they were behind your eye, then the shearing motion made when you look in different directions would constantly pull and tear at the vessels until they either toughened and you couldn't move your eyes, or they would break open and bleed into your eye itself. Sounds a lot better than what we have now, doesn't it?
And please explain how some of the simplest organisms could have evolved: Protists. A euglena uses a whiplike tail to propel itself through the water. Tell me, if you were in a pool and all you had was an Indiana Jones whip, could you move very fast? No, not really. However, these mindless little creatures do it every day. In fact, taxonomy shows that they don't just whip the little tail around, they actually spin it with a biological equivalent of an outboard motor! Now, please tell me this could have 'evolved' by chance: Without the flagella, the biological rotor would be useless, without the rotor, the flagella would be useless. Either way, the organism is eaten and it's an evolutionary dead end. Ah, but you say, what if they both happened at once? Then it would fit and I can keep my theory. Well, people extrapolated that as well, and came up with Interrupted-Something Evolution. Their theory, in a nutshell, is that the first bird just popped out of a dinosaur egg, conpletely formed and everything. Sound plausible? No? This is just an example of how desperate evolutionary scientists are to keep their theory.
And another thing I want to point out: You proclaim yourself to be a scientific-thinking person, but yet everything you do is done TO PROVE a theory. A true scientific experiment makes a theory, then tries everything it can to disprove the theory. Instead, evolutionists came up with a theory and started amassing all the evidence they could find for it. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.