If there has been a dramatic proliferation of living organisms from the simple to the complex, there must be some mechanism by which this explosion has occurred. Your dogmatism also indicates that you have not engaged with the 15 Questions at all there is nothing in what you have written that indicates anything but a cursory look. Most people were ashamed if people were born into their families with handicaps, so no one kept record of the numbers. He said that evolution is a known fact and no one wants to hear different. Perhaps that is because anyone who actually knows much about biology knows that they would be 'on a loser' trying to answer these questions.
You protest that you were raised as Roman Catholic and you are not an atheist. We refer to this as being descended from a common ancestor, not that men came from apes. Now, however, natural selection as a means of explaining evolution is under vicious attack—by evolutionists themselves! I'm not saying they had more bad back then, but just that maybe they were slower? But all these things and much more are encapsulated in the 15 Questions, which you don't seem to have bothered to read including the linked reading. Lamarckism is the theory that unites the law of use and disuse with the law of the transmission of acquired characteristics, and asserted that acquired characteristics, such as muscle mass, could be transmitted from a parent to its offspring. Illustrators and paleontologists can recreate likenesses based on what is known and then infer the rest.
Evidence for evolution comes from many areas, including the fossil record, the law of superposition, biogeography, artificial selection, homologous structures, vestigial organs, and genetics. Under that same reasoning, we would never have scientific progress or discoveries. Many people say that they want their children to be exposed to creationism in school, but there are thousands of different ideas about creation among the world's people. We can't just stop evolving. People would have their T-shirts, leaflets and whatever else. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. They are working on this, trying to find out more about it.
Groups that are kept in geographical isolation for a long time tend to accumulate different phenotypical characteristics from each other by means of genetic variability mutations and recombination and natural selection. It will be on my door very soon! Would mammals, birds, and reptiles not be considered major animal groups? Charles Darwin was an English naturalist born in 1809 and is considered the father of the theory of evolution. However, the other stories often embellish things with fanciful aspects e. But if you live as if God does not exist, which you clearly do, you live as if you were an atheist, however you want to describe it. Reproductive isolation is an important concept because it defines the concept of a species: only living organisms that can cross-breed among themselves and generate fertile offspring, or rather, that are not in reproductive isolation, belong to the same species. See: and However, do I believe the Bible because of these corroborating evidences of a shared history? Your experience reminded me of this article:. And yet they stay well clear of actual academic circles.
Life evolved from primordial elements formed on the early Earth billions of years ago by chance or rather, by divine providence. Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features? Natural selection is the main mechanism which drives evolution. In that regard it is like evolution, which also has no viable mechanism, as the questions show. Ans: They live in moister regions. Which is not a of man? These rules say life must appear, and it must follow these rules.
. Since it is on my door, no one so far has dared to remove it! If you look a little like your mom and a little like your dad, that is just a special mixing of the genes. It can be passed on from person to person, and it can also deform your outer appearance. We will be going into presuppositions next week and how to recognize them and how to separate the facts as presented from them. For example, change in neck of giraffe does not occur in genetic material. Similarly, I am confident that the fine scientists in the creationist camp would be happy to accept a challenge of 15 questions that evolutionists believe unanswerable by our theory. Have you had a look? The topic of our present trivia is at the center of one of the most heated debates around the world at the moment.
So, if atheists care more for what they feel and less for the truth, I'm not gonna spoil it for them. Because, either way it's both a genetic thing, whether it's inside or outside. A fossil per se proves nothing except that some creature died and left its imprint behind. Note, I am talking here about facts, not daydreaming about what happened in the past, which is not 'scientific knowledge'. Has evolution advanced quickly, or slowly? These individuals are submitted to environmental pressure and can be more or less well-adapted concerning survival or reproduction. The part explaining how viruses work might have been off point. But some changes are from mutations, or changes in the genes themselves.
Accusations of dishonesty which seem to be all too common from atheists who can have no basis for such an objective moral standard , are way off the mark. We can't just stop evolving. We do see birth defects and problems and different sicknesses that kids can get born with. Ans: This mechanism lack reasonable evidences. Those better adapted transmit their genetic heritage to a larger number of descendants, thus increasing the frequency of their genes in the population; those less well-adapted tend to transmit their genes to a smaller number of descendants, thus decreasing the frequency of their genes in the population or even becoming extinct. I gave up on evolution a long time ago—it has no answers and creates big questions that need better, more logical answers, instead of faith based claims.
Most religions of the world do not have any direct conflict with the idea of evolution. In my view,'objectivity' does not exist in science. Then microbe to man will be dealt with accordingly. That we must have been created of course does not mean that the creator was necessarily the One revealed in the Bible. Being raised in the church does not of itself make you ever a Christian, any more than putting a horse in a dairy makes it a cow. If some of them haven't, at least scientists are now converging upon truthful answers.
A virus is a tiny little piece of material that can infect your cells, and take them over, and then it reproduces itself. See also my response to N. If God is behind it, it is not chance. Because, either way it's both a genetic thing, whether it's inside or outside. My problem with your religious dogma is that it is literally stunting minds across the globe. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is constant and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs—an idea known as punctuated equilibrium.