jales said:
that need for survival on a personal level.....and Natural selection in my opinion is a really good theory ...yes things change..but what Darwin said however 'evil' it may sound..has nothing to do with DNA technology ..he was commenting on our past as a species..as well as that of other living things..
and
You basically just said that because we have morals there is a God...umm so if I said to you that we have moral standards in society because we feel..
As in if I steal from you, you feel bad...so eventually laws are put into place to protect everyone's feelings...
Then is there no God?
LoL, I'm not hurt at all... in fact I'm glad that you participated in this debate. Everyones views are welcome and, if nothing else, your insight gives me a chance to clarify my thoughts and solidify my own standing.
So to begin... The reason I brought up DNA and how it disproves Natural Selection and Evolutionary theory is because the theorists say that there are two possible catalysts to creating a NEW or EVOLVED creature.
1. Natural Selection
2. Mutation
MUTATION
I brought up DNA, because DNA science tells us that mutation of the DNA structure requires external catalyst, such as radiation or chemical substances being introduced. The science done with mutation to date has shown that altering DNA in this way causes cells to either die, cease growing, or develop negative growth. Not beneficial growth as some uneducated Evolutionists believe.
I am sorry but that does mean that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles would have just been four normal sized, but quite toxic and dead, turtles in a sewer somewhere.
That is why radiation is used to treat cancer, because it can cause the cancerous cells to STOP growing. This science was not available to Darwin when he wrote his theories, so he had no idea that mutation must be ruled out as a catalyst to Evolution.
Szent-Gyorgyi, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it were already complete with all its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. Everything in a species has to work right, or it becomes weak and eventually dies out. Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist.
NATURAL SELECTION:
First off, lets define Natural Selection...
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
Ok, so I didn't really dispute Natural Selection though in my previous post, so I'll cover that now:
Neo-Darwinists: Charles Darwin said that natural selection made every single transition from one species to another. Those who adhere to natural selection as the only way evolution can occur are called Darwinists or Darwinian evolutionists.
Now he made this theory all the way back in the grand old year of 1859... that's hundreds of years ago! Think how far science has come since then, and how much of the information in modern science was not available to him at the time.
Keep in mind that changes within a species are not evolution. They occur all the time.
Entirely random: Not only is natural selection supposed to have produced everything, the process is said to be entirely random! Evolutionists can never admit that any intelligence was involved in the formation of squirrels, humming birds, or human beings.
Yet, how can it be called "selection"—when nothing was selected! And, surely, it cannot be considered "natural" since cross-species transitions never occur in nature.
Evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. Yet, if even half those random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging.
How can total randomness select only that which is better and move only in advantageous directions?
So, If suddenly one ape became a man, would the other apes be willing to reproduce with it to create a new species? Most likely not. Not to mention that cross-species breeding is a physical impossibility due, in large part to chromosomes... it has been tried, and one mammalian species ovaries cannot accept the sperm of another totally different mammalian species (dog+dog=dog not dog+ape=new species).
So that newly formed, more intelligent ape would have died lonely and alone without the capability to procreate.
Survival of the fittest: This is a buzz word of evolutionists. But it is meaningless as far as enabling a new species to occur. The truth is that "survival of the fittest" is the opposite of evolution; it means that creatures which are not fit enough, whether produced by mutations or by random event, are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure, primal species pattern.
There have been documented accounts from over 2000 years ago of animals and humans physical traits... why is it that in this world today there are still people capable of suffering from leprosy? After all that time why are there disease that affected us back then the same way as they are still capable of affecting us today? Our science evolves, our theories evolve, our society evolves. But all creatures great and small I am afraid, do not.
Another thing, I saw you mention slavery, so I'll comment on that...
Considering Natural Selection and slavery... If everyone followed the belief in Natural Selection, would it make more sense for slaves to remain slaves, or for society to decide that those who were slaves are humans too, and let them live as humans should be allowed to, freely?
After all slavery is a means of suppressing and controlling another people, and for such widespread acceptance of it to have been allowed (by the way, in Darwin's age slavery was still practiced on a large scale) the people encouraging and accepting slavery would had to have seen the slaves as a sub-species or, in the least, a lesser people. To see a slave as your equal would have been absurd to them. This view towards slaves has been shown time and time again in stories and accounts by people living in times when slavery was accepted.
So following the teachings of Natural Selection would encourage, more than discourage, slavery would it not?
(just so you know, my belief is that slavery is wrong, and that it came about because of beliefs much like Natural Selection, long before that term was ever coined)
One final point. There is documentation of what physical traits humans had thousands of years ago. Why has there been no new changes to our species? Not even slight outer physical changes? If Natural Selection were true we would probably have seen some trend in either the mating decisions or physical characteristics of humanity. We are the same physically as we were back then.
We have greatly altered the world around us yet, two thousand plus years and many environmental changes later, we remain physically the same.
There are a few differences in our species that define race. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS A GENERALIZATION. IF YOU TAKE OFFENSE THEN YOU SHOULD SEE A PSYCHIATRIST) White people have rounded eyes, many variety of hair color, many variety of eye color. Black people have predominantly darker hair, rounded eyes, darker skin tones, eye colors have a tendency to be brown, green, grey. Asians have lighter skin, slanted eyes, darker hair, and so on...
That being said, I think an interesting experiment would be if you took all people of all races and stood them side by side according to slight variations in physical characteristics. I bet you would be able to show a perfect spectrum of white, turning into to Asian, turning into Indian, turning into to black, and so on all the way around again. There would be no defining point of transition between all of the races of man... why is that? Because there is no such thing as Natural Selection or Evolution. We are variations of human. Not distinct races, though for some reason we feel a need to identify ourselves, not only as individuals, but also as different races. Take away Natural Selection and Evolution and we are left with God, a Creator, a Designer.
Why are there many variations of physical characteristics of man but no broad physical differences (excluding deformities due to disease, mutation, or mutilation), because that's the way we were created... equal. We may look slightly different so that we can tell one another apart, but in both physical and mental capacities at birth, we are no different.
(barring negative medical difficulties or deformities that occur while in the womb, or due to negative environmental or hereditary influence).
Ok, all that ranting and raving aside I do believe in one aspect of Natural Selection (and this is a small truth amongst so much lies) is that, yes the strong survive. However, that applies only to the animal kingdom.
Look at Stephen Hawking. If it applied to humans as well, he probably would have died. Plus he had a wife and actually divorced her for another wife... Natural Selection would dictate that no woman would desire to be with a man in his physical condition... Darwin's Theories were a fad, the time has come to accept this and move on with scientific theories that have more basis in reality and less assumptions toward a fairytale past where a 1 in 200 trillion chance millions of years ago created us all. The whole idea is just... unscientific.
If people were to choose mates along the lines of Natural Selections dictation, it would in fact be classed more accurately as Artificial Selection.
Look at domesticated animals. At one point there was many animals roaming free. Nevertheless, people were able to develop domestic breeds of animals as well as crops through artificial selection. So ARTIFICIAL SELECTION created better breeds for our purposes. Not Natural Selection.
Chickens are around the world in massive proportions, yet the do-do bird no longer exists. Why do chickens still exist? Not because they learned to fly... because they are tasty and we love to eat them.
Well, I'm tired and my thoughts aren't really so coherent any more so I hope I didn't make too many confusing sentences or what not, cause I don't feel like going over this post and doing revisions right now... anyway, I'll just post as-is.
Thanks for the debate its been fun!
