Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Mutations DO Increase Functionality

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

P1234567890 wrote:

....
I have no idea if the quote above is a real quote from Gould. I suspect it isn't, but if it is, then you have taken it grossly out of context.

.....

atoz: U have NO idea? I suspect? Then an assertion?smile

So what do you mean by out of context?

with Love,
atoz

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

atoz wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

....
I have no idea if the quote above is a real quote from Gould. I suspect it isn't, but if it is, then you have taken it grossly out of context.

.....

atoz: U have NO idea? I suspect? Then an assertion?smile

So what do you mean by out of context?

If you actually went to the trouble of reading anything Gould wrote (I have gone to that trouble), you will find that he most certainly did believe that mutations are a *very* important part of the evolutionary process.

This means that your quote is either completely fraudulent (which wouldn't surprise me, given how dishonest creationists on the internet are; I'm sure there are plenty of fake quotes floating around for people like you to find) or taken completely out of context, in which case you are quote mining.

In either case you shouldn't use this quote in this way. I quoted Gould a few days ago explaining that being (mis)quoted by creationists was a big pet peeve of his. You should respect that.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

P1234567890 wrote:

.....If you actually went to the trouble of reading anything Gould wrote (I have gone to that trouble), you will find that he most certainly did believe that mutations are a *very* important part of the evolutionary process.

atoz: So how do you or did he square what he said in his own words in those quotes?
Haven't you checked yet?

P1234567890 wrote:

This means that your quote is either completely fraudulent (which wouldn't surprise me, given how dishonest creationists on the internet are; I'm sure there are plenty of fake quotes floating around for people like you to find) or taken completely out of context, in which case you are quote mining.

atoz: So what did SG mean by that quote in context IF it's true but only taken out of context?

By the way, did you check out IF Richard Dawkins said that religion is a scientific theory, and do you what he means by it IF he said it?

"A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one.
A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.
So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."

In the meantime, as long as you lvoe and respect yourself as honest and dishonest so you can love and respect those who are dishonest and those you call dishonest and frauds,
you are fine!

If not, your Hate & Disrespect for yourself as dishonest has already made and is making you dishonest in attitude of mind or in scientific spirit---most bad for any scientist.

P1234567890 wrote:

In either case you shouldn't use this quote in this way. I quoted Gould a few days ago explaining that being (mis)quoted by creationists was a big pet peeve of his. You should respect that.

atoz: Oh, I do love and respect all pets and peeves!
U know me!smile
Do you love and respect or hate and disrespect,
or do you know if SG also loves and respect or hates and disrespect

pet peeves or those with whom he or you are peeved and with yourselves when you are peeved with yourselves?

It wd have been so simple
for you to have written him and asked him to elucidate before he died,
or
for him to have elucidated before he died since he was the one so peeved--by your account---so that he cd have eased his own peeve.

Any way, we KNOW that Richard Dawkins IS alive!smile
So you know what to do!smile

with Love and Respect for myself as a pet and peeve so that I can love & respect pet peeves and peeved pets and beeves and beefs ad peefs, smile, and all others,
atoz

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

atoz wrote:

atoz: So what did SG mean by that quote in context IF it's true but only taken out of context?

That's a big if, but it could be something as simple as leaving out the next sentence. Maybe he said something like this:

Quote:

A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species. ...
That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is NOT the cause of evolutionary change. In order to have evolutionary change, you have to have MANY compounded mutations over MANY generations AND some kind of selection pressures.

See what a difference it makes to leave out one sentence?

atoz wrote:

By the way, did you check out IF Richard Dawkins said that religion is a scientific theory, and do you what he means by it IF he said it?

"A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one.
A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.
So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."

Yes, he's saying that many of the claims of religion are scientifically testable. I've been reiterating this here for many, many posts.

For example, much of the Book of Genesis is scientifically testable, and in fact it has been shown scientifically to be incorrect. If God created all of the creatures within a few days of each other, then they were all alive at the same time, and we would expect their fossils to be found in the same strata. However, this is *definitely* not the case. Fossils are extremely segregated according to time.

For example, no human (or any other large mammal) fossils have *ever* been found in the same strata is dinosaur fossils. This proves *scientifically* that the Book of Genesis is not literally true.

Note that the fossil record IS compatible with evolution, however, and in fact looks *exactly* like what it predicts.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

P1234567890 wrote:

...
That's a big if, but it could be something as simple as leaving out the next sentence. Maybe he said something like this:

Quote:

See what a difference it makes to leave out one sentence?

atoz: Excellent example!
But then, I wd have an auto followup, as you too shd have:

Sir,
since no major new material is ever created by mutations,
are you saying that there are NO new species, just variations on a basic set of designs,
which I take you to mean when you said:
STEPHEN T. GOUI.D, HARVARD,
"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups,
but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs
than
a saga of accumulating excellence."
NATURAL HISTORY, 2/82, P. 22,23

What do you think SJG wd have answered?

P1234567890 wrote:

atoz wrote:

atoz: Thanx.

So if evolution is continuing as we speak,
why don't we see it at work and at play all thru out life?

Why don't fords evolve into benz?smile
Why does it not naturally occur to me to conclude that slavery in history was just an evolutionary thing, a survival of the fittest thing?
Why isn't murder just another natural evolutionary event?
Shd I conclude that rape is just an evolutionary development to be taken in stride?
If evolution has been going on for billions and billions of years, is it possible that Evolutin also evolved God, that God has also already evolved?smile

And if we all came from nothing,
where did nothing come from?

I mean, we have zero or nought in math already,
so since nothing is the counter of everthing,
then nothing DOES and MUST exist.
Are you saying that nothing came from nothing?smile
Or, that everything came from nothing?

And if youa re saying everything came from nothing,
er, ah,
I learned that in the RCC Cathecism:
God created everything out of nothing.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So are you saying that Evolution is God and God is Evolution?

Doesn't Evoution say that the purposelessnes of life has no purpose?
So if Evolution does have that purpose of NO purpose,
could Evolution be purposeless?smile

with Love and r for evolution and creation,
atoz

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

atoz wrote:

I think he would have focused on the following claim of yours:

Quote:

since no major new material is ever created by mutations

He would have pointed out that it is objectively false, and that we have seen many, many examples of major new material being created by mutations. He would have pointed out that in fact there are *several* different mutational pathways which create brand new genes with brand new functionality. We have also witnessed new species being created in the lab.

One such pathway is called 'gene duplication'. Another pathway is called 'chromosomal speciation'.

Atoz, although you mean well, as far as I can tell you haven't had a proper science education, and you are completely unaware of many very important scientific facts. You've been listening to the wrong people, and through no fault of your own they have misled you. I'm not saying this to try to criticize you or put you down in any way, but rather to make an observation which I think you should consider.

As a general rule, you should NOT listen to people on the internet. The internet is *NOT* peer-reviewed. Anyone can write anything on here. People can write that mutations never create any new genetic material or functionality, but that does not make it true.

You should listen to the scientists, who after all are the people who understand all of these things the best.

atoz wrote:

So if evolution is continuing as we speak,
why don't we see it at work and at play all thru out life?

We do.

atoz wrote:

Why don't fords evolve into benz?smile

This is a misapplication of evolutionary theory, because it deals exclusively with living creatures, and not with cars. That being said, one could make a metaphorical argument that cars have 'evolved'. If you compare a modern Mercedes with the first Mercedes, the new one is considerably more advanced, and came to be through a series of baby steps. If you put all of the models in chronological order next to each other, you will see 'evolution'.

The same thing happens when we put all of the fossils in chronological order, except it is a little more complicated in that it forms a tree rather than a simple path.

atoz wrote:

Why does it not naturally occur to me to conclude that slavery in history was just an evolutionary thing, a survival of the fittest thing?
Why isn't murder just another natural evolutionary event?
Shd I conclude that rape is just an evolutionary development to be taken in stride?

Because all of these are social constructs and actions and have nothing to do with our genes. Evolution is about biological systems, and not about social ones. Nobody claims that evolution is a grand unified theory which explains everything. But it DOES explain and unify all of the different biologies.

atoz wrote:

If evolution has been going on for billions and billions of years, is it possible that Evolutin also evolved God, that God has also already evolved?smile

The answer to this question depends entirely on your definition of God.

atoz wrote:

And if we all came from nothing,
where did nothing come from?

We didn't come from nothing. Where did you get this idea from?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

P1234567890 wrote:

Quote:

STEPHEN T. GOULD, HARVARD,
"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups,
but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs
than
a saga of accumulating excellence."
NATURAL HISTORY, 2/82, P. 22,23

What do you think SJG wd have answered?

I think he would have focused on the following claim of yours:

Quote:

since no major new material is ever created by mutations

atoz: Then I wd have asked:

Are you saying that micro-mutation within a species is what leads to macro-mutation into a different and brand new species?

Did a fly ever become a flea?
Isn't drosophila the same after 50 million years?
Did a bee ever become a b with an itch?smile
Did a bait ever become a bat?
Is it true that the bat's wing, if evolved by the "normal" Mendelian mutation and selective pressure, would have had to begin developing well before the origin of the Earth?

What is the name of the new lab-created species?

P1234567890 wrote:

One such pathway is called 'gene duplication'. Another pathway is called 'chromosomal speciation'.

atoz: same questions as above.

P1234567890 wrote:

Atoz, although you mean well, as far as I can tell you haven't had a proper science education, and you are completely unaware of many very important scientific facts. You've been listening to the wrong people, and through no fault of your own they have misled you. I'm not saying this to try to criticize you or put you down in any way, but rather to make an observation which I think you should consider.

atoz: Above all, I do lvoe the tone of that!smile
Since I do have the Tone of Love for me as as poor educated in science, as unaware, wrong, misled, criticised and put down, I am well aware that I am unaware and etc!smile
So I think you mean that you are not hating me nor dissing me as such!
Very good!smile

P1234567890 wrote:

As a general rule, you should NOT listen to people on the internet.

atoz: With the many exceptions of present company excepted?smile
What you mean is listen with Love and Respect and verify or deverify in Love of self and others as liars as wrong and as etc.

P1234567890 wrote:

The internet is *NOT* peer-reviewed.

atoz: Peers reviewed by blind peers still means the ditch on either side of the road.
What you mean is peers reviewed by anyone with Love and Respect.

P1234567890 wrote:

Anyone can write anything on here. People can write that mutations never create any new genetic material or functionality, but that does not make it true.

atoz: So it is MY job to check it out! It is your job too!
This is why I quote biologists and scientists and etc against other biologists, etc.
Opposite conclusions may mean both are false, both are right, one is wrong, one is right. It is only with Love and R that we can figure out who is right and who is wrong and if it matters in the first place.

P1234567890 wrote:

You should listen to the scientists, who after all are the people who understand all of these things the best.

atoz: No scientist or religist who hates or disrespects any other scientist or non-scientist or religist or non-religist understands the very first thing about anything, least of all science, least of all religion!

P1234567890 wrote:

atoz wrote:

Why don't fords evolve into benz?smile

This is a misapplication of evolutionary theory, because it deals exclusively with living creatures, and not with cars.

atoz: oh?
Then, is abiogenesis misapplied to evolution?
What is abiogenesis then?

P1234567890 wrote:

That being said, one could make a metaphorical argument that cars have 'evolved'. If you compare a modern Mercedes with the first Mercedes, the new one is considerably more advanced, and came to be through a series of baby steps. If you put all of the models in chronological order next to each other, you will see 'evolution'.

atoz: that's it! So cd it be that darwin et biologists looked at various species and concluded the ford animal came from the benz animal, when it is just really a metaphorical argument AS IF it cd be so that became it IS so?

P1234567890 wrote:

The same thing happens when we put all of the fossils in chronological order, except it is a little more complicated in that it forms a tree rather than a simple path.

atoz: Exactly! It cd be they each came from an original one OR that they were all variations on a set or original designs that ONLY LOOKED AS IF one came the other!

P1234567890 wrote:

atoz wrote:

Because all of these are social constructs and actions and have nothing to do with our genes.

atoz: So are you saying that evolutionary genes produced living genes that produced humans that produced social constructs and actions that evolution has nothing to with and is not responsible for?
hmmmm

So is that responsibilty or irresponsibility in Evolution for Evolution to produce what it is NOT responsible for and has nothing to do with?
How can that be?
How could that be?

P1234567890 wrote:

Evolution is about biological systems, and not about social ones. Nobody claims that evolution is a grand unified theory which explains everything.

atoz: So Evolution is responsible for everything biological,
but Evolution is not responsible for everything Evolution produced by everything biological?
hmmmmmmmmm

P1234567890 wrote:

But it DOES explain and unify all of the different biologies.

atoz: So Evolution does explain & unify everything about all different biologies, but Evolution also does NOT explain everything that that Evolution-produced everything-Biologies produced?
hmmmmmmmmm

P1234567890 wrote:

atoz wrote:

If evolution has been going on for billions and billions of years, is it possible that Evolutin also evolved God, that God has also already evolved?smile

The answer to this question depends entirely on your definition of God.

atoz: the Def. wd be:
God is God as produced by Evolution.

P1234567890 wrote:

atoz wrote:

And if we all came from nothing,
where did nothing come from?

We didn't come from nothing. Where did you get this idea from?

atoz: I got the idea that life and we who are alive with that life came from nothing from Evolution.
Evoluton claims abiogenesis: that life came from something that has NOTHING to do with life.

Looking fwd to your answers in that Tone of Love and Respect!smile

with all Love and Respect,
atoz

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

atoz wrote:

Are you saying that micro-mutation within a species is what leads to macro-mutation into a different and brand new species?

Obviously. If you pile millions of small changes on top of each other, you will get a big change. A single piece of paper is very thin, but a stack of one million pieces of paper is pretty darned tall!

atoz wrote:

Did a fly ever become a flea?
Isn't drosophila the same after 50 million years?
Did a bee ever become a b with an itch?smile
Did a bait ever become a bat?
Is it true that the bat's wing, if evolved by the "normal" Mendelian mutation and selective pressure, would have had to begin developing well before the origin of the Earth?

I don't know what you mean by 'Mendelian selective pressure'. Mendel lived will before modern genetics was understood, so there's no way he could have understood how mutations really work. Why would you try to criticize modern evolutionary theory using ancient ideas?

As for your other questions, we have definitive evidence from the fossil record which shows that creatures evolved from other creatures. Do you think that it's a coincidence that there are a series of Homonid fossils which over time stand progressively more and more upright and get progressively larger and larger cranial capacities?

atoz wrote:

What is the name of the new lab-created species?

Different species of fruit flies.

atoz wrote:

It doesn't seem like it. Your attacks on evolution sound very confident to me, even though almost all of them are very unscientific and uninformed.

atoz wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

As a general rule, you should NOT listen to people on the internet.

atoz: With the many exceptions of present company excepted?smile

No, you shouldn't listen to me either. But the beautiful thing about everything that I've said is that it doesn't require you to trust me. You can verify every single fact I have given for yourself in the scientific literature. You can visit your local university's biology department and ask the scientists there if what I say is true.

That's the whole point of science: Independent verifiability.

atoz wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Anyone can write anything on here. People can write that mutations never create any new genetic material or functionality, but that does not make it true.

atoz: So it is MY job to check it out! It is your job too!

But the problem is that you don't seem to have the necessary tools to be able to check it out. Because of your lack of scientific background, you can't tell fact from fiction. Again, I'm not saying this to criticize you or put you down, but I'm making an observation which I think you should reflect on.

atoz wrote:

This is why I quote biologists and scientists and etc against other biologists, etc.

But that's not what you're doing! Just look at the Gould quote you gave; it really doesn't say what you think it says. Your main problem is that you're trying to find quotes on the internet. You don't know which ones are real, and you don't know which scientists are real scientists and which ones are complete quacks. The internet is terrible for this.

atoz wrote:

atoz: oh?
Then, is abiogenesis misapplied to evolution?
What is abiogenesis then?

Abiogenesis and evolution are entirely separate topics which can be studied independently of each other.

atoz wrote:

atoz: Exactly! It cd be they each came from an original one OR that they were all variations on a set or original designs that ONLY LOOKED AS IF one came the other!

If you look at the genomes, you find that the resemblance between species is FAR deeper than superficial similarity. Genomes look exactly like what you'd expect from billions of years of random mutations. They don't contain even a hint of design.

We know that the Book of Genesis contains falsehoods and that we have *much* better explanations for where all the biodiversity on Earth came from.

atoz wrote:

atoz: I got the idea that life and we who are alive with that life came from nothing from Evolution.
Evoluton claims abiogenesis: that life came from something that has NOTHING to do with life.

See, this is where your lack of a scientific background is coming in again. No, evolution does not necessarily involve abiogenesis. Darwin's theories work perfectly well even if you assume that God created the original spark of life.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566

Location: BC

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

atoz wrote:

If evolution has been going on for billions and billions of years, is it possible that Evolutin also evolved God, that God has also already evolved?smile

A little bit of a tangent, but in a way, God has evolved (inasmuch as one entity can evolve). The reason I can say this is that I really mean the concept of God in people's minds has changed with each successive mind thinking about him.

For starters, God used to be a whole pantheon of gods (Elohim?) and then when it got more popular to believe in just one God who does all the jobs gods do, the concept of Elohim changed. When it got more popular to believe in a God that loves us all, he evolved (remember, I'm talking about people's ideas about what God is) to be our loving heavenly father.

I could go on about how religion in general has evolved, but I think that's enough of an off-topic for now! Wink

_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Mutations DO Increase Functionality

Ana wrote:

atoz wrote:

If evolution has been going on for billions and billions of years, is it possible that Evolutin also evolved God, that God has also already evolved?smile

atoz: Exactly right, Ana, and right on topic!
We can see how evolution works when E evolves God!

In the Love that sees that one God with all names is the same as all Gods with one name,smile
atoz

The Barbarian
Hamster

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 86

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:27 am Post subject:

Quote:

What I need is some evidence of it occurring as you have explained. That would be something new.
What I would like to see, in just one of these dissertations, is an empirical example of this increase in both the DNA chain and functionality.

Sure. The "Nylon Bug" mutation. It was a frameshift mutation in a plasmid of a bacterium, that gave it a novel enzyme that allowed it to metabolize nylon.
Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain. [2] Other scientists were able to get the ability to generate the enzymes to transfer from the Flavobacterium strain to a strain of E.Coli bacteria via a plasmid transfer. [3] Genetic analysis of the plasmid led some scientists to the conclusion that the genes to produce one of the enzymes had most likely resulted from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

While studying bacterial genetics, Barry Hall observed dozens of favorable mutations in a culture of E. coli bacteria, that produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020320081607.htm

Would you like some more?

Quote:

If, and this is my point, if this process has resulted in ALL extant life, then we would assuredly have countless examples of this occurring today. If this is indeed the process... where have we seen this occur?!?

Pretty much everywhere we look. It happens with humans, too. If you assume we started with Adam and Eve (I happen to think so) then without favorable mutations, humans could have at most, four useful alleles for each gene locus. But most of them have dozens. The others must have evolved by mutation.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:59 am Post subject:

The Barbarian wrote:

If you assume we started with Adam and Eve (I happen to think so)

You believe in the literal Adam and Eve?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

The Barbarian
Hamster

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 86

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:09 am Post subject:

Yep. Last common set of ancestors.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:34 am Post subject:

The Barbarian wrote:

Yep. Last common set of ancestors.

Let me get this straight: You believe that every single human alive today is literally a descendant of two individuals?

Do you also believe that God created them or do you believe that they evolved from lower primates?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:19 am Post subject:

The Barbarian wrote:

Yep. Last common set of ancestors.

Hey!

U are unique!smile

with Love and R,
atoz

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3