people adapting to their environment would entitle evolution of their skin pigment so it be more resistant to the sun so adam and eve just owned themselves...

The peppered moth shift from light colored to dark colored was not a mutation. the moths already contained genetic information for both variations of moths. It was simply a shift in population for the moths. The ones who were darker got to live in that circumstance, its not any different from a genocide. if you are a certain color of skin, or of a certain tribe/religious group then you are spared. In the case of peppered moths, the birds were commiting genocide towards the lightly pigmented moths that stuck out like a sore thumb on trees with soot, and got eaten. as someone has already said in this topic, not survival of the fittest survival of the luckiest.


i didnt misread, i misunderstood. i thought you were slamming him because he is catholic. lol, my bad.

Macro evolution is one kind changing to another, like a banana tree changing into a fly. This has never been seen, and neer been proven, and so far is mythical.

As for a good mutation, no, there are NEVER any 'good' mutations. Also with a mutation, for evolution to succeed you would need a new input, a new addition to an organisms DNA, and this has never been seen ever. Like when a cow has a mutation of 5 legs, the cow (during conception) already had DNA of how to make a leg, it just made an extra one. There would be no new addition to the cows DNA strand.

As for bacteria and viral mutation becoming immune to antibiotics.. Well antibiotics work by detecting bacteria through the nodes on the surface of a cacterial cell. These nodes are what identify your blood type on your blood cell, anyways, when a bacterium mutates it loses information inside of its DNA strand through an error during mitosis (splitting of the cell). This loss of info sometimes includes these nodes, so you have a bacteria cell with a new 'tag'. Since this bacteria has a new 'tag' (being the nodes) the antibiotic does not recognize the cell and the cell is unharmed. Then all the other bacteria are wiped out except the mutated one. Well since this is a loss of information in the bacteria's DNA, it is harmfull to the bacteria and does not allow the bacteria to become anything 'more' than a bacteria. The reason this mutation is harmful is: Say you wre being chased by the police and they wanted to handcuff you, well, you 'mutate' and cut off your arms. Now the police cant handcuff you. Well is this beneficial? At the time it is.. but later down the road you will need your arms, and you will die without them. Same with the bacteria, at the time the mutation is helpful, but since it LOST DNA later down the rode this will be harmful to the bacteria.

Allright there are actually 6 types of evolution.

Macro evolution is one kind changing to another, like a banana tree changing into a fly. This has never been seen, and neer been proven, and so far is mythical.

As for a good mutation, no, there are NEVER any 'good' mutations. Also with a mutation, for evolution to succeed you would need a new input, a new addition to an organisms DNA, and this has never been seen ever.

As for proving gravity, well the gravity IS a theory. But! You can actually test gravity and gravity is able to be tested anytime. As with evolution, you can never 'test' evolution, and therefore it hardly qualifies as a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Criticisms_of_macroevolution
Enough with the fundamentalist bullshit.

And during the days of moses god man all sinning men die, except moses who was perfect.

lolol

First of all wikipedia is flawed because anyone can come into it and post anything.

About criticism.. no. You can't just change the definition of a word and expect everyone to bow down in awe.

I am using macro evolution as an identifier between changing from one kind to another kind. I.E. bananas turning into flies.

So if you want to argue about this then your argueing about the definition of a word.. Not the theory itself. If you want I can use false evolution, or neverbeenseenbefore evolution instead of macro. Its up to you.

First of all wikipedia is flawed because anyone can come into it and post anything.

All textbooks are flawed because someone made them, and that someone is capable of introducing his/her/their own bias into the work.
...
On the other hand, Wikipedia's open nature allows individual bias to be mostly cleared, at the cost of its occasional rampancy.
It's compromise.

... I'm not understanding the point of the rest of your post.

All textbooks are flawed because someone made them, and that someone is capable of introducing his/her/their own bias into the work.
...
On the other hand, Wikipedia's open nature allows individual bias to be mostly cleared, at the cost of its occasional rampancy.
It's compromise.

... I'm not understanding the point of the rest of your post.

Why the fuck would a banana tree change into a fly? Plants and animals took their own separate branches on the tree of Evolution long ago. Evolution does not state that one thing can totally transform into something totally different. Creatures evolve slowly into new ones over time in a way that best benefits the species.


Yes, there have been good mutations. It's the reason that you and I are alive today. A mutation is a CHANGE in DNA, NOT an addition. If it's useless or beneficial, it is passed on to the offspring.


That is not harmful to the bacteria. The bacteria is now immune to the strain of antibiotics and is free to create more bacteria that are immune to a certain strain. The bacteria did not lose any DNA, it merely made a minute change that made it resistant. On your whole mutation is harmful argument: that example is ludicrous, and is NOT an example of mutation.

lolol

First of all wikipedia is flawed because anyone can come into it and post anything.

Uhm well a mutation could qualify as an addition though that never happens

??? Moses wasn't perfect, the only perfect being to ever walk this earth was Christ, Moses' only sin was when he smote the rock he didn't do it in God's name.

(Sorry about this all of those who are trying to keep this away from religion, but it bugged me )

Prove your so called flood first please. The Earth has never been completely underwater since its origin when no life was around.