Microevolution is driven by "breeding" or reproduction under environmental influences. Failure to survive or reproduce results in local extirpation and ultimately extinction. These forces can occur rapidly or 1000s of years. Time is relative here. Genetics and environmental influence on populations of organisms are key.

 

Once again, are we to believe that an organism that respirated by osmosis or an alternate method, suddenly sprouted lungs and a circulatory system? Such a system needs all components to work, and they cannot be incrementally developed since they are all interrelated. Can you give a hypothetical scenario as to how an organism might make the jump from osmotic exchange of gases and nutrients, to lungs, heart, arteries and veins?
Mutations are usually relegated to partially formed appendages, or "extra" organs which are malformed "copies" of existing organs. Can you give an example of new (read, totally new function) organs forming, or beginning to form in a lab?

Since we still have very simple organisms functioning with very(relatively speaking) primative methods of respiration (such as paramecium) what would be the enviromental factors that would cause the organism to become more complicated rather than remain in its primitive, yet sufficient, and durable system?

If a complex circulatory system evolved over thousands of years, why would (assuming I accept the idea of them being a viable concept) the incremental, mutational,incomplete, non-functional components of such system be more surviveable than the organism's original form? What are the odds that these individuals would mate with others like them to pass on the recessive trait, let alone allow it to become eventually dominant?

Why have computer models made to mutate at normal rates, based on actual rates of probabilities, only produced worm-like organisms at the height of their advancement after calculating the estimated (and accepted) figure of 65 million years that the earth is believed to be in age?(which, incidentally, I totally reject)

 

No one is saying it happened in a nanosecond.
My whole point is that there is macroevolution and microevolution and that things coevolve.

And to argue that biologists aren't Christian, or Jewish, or Wiccan if the study evolution on any level is ludicrous.

Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

And that's my point. They have to come about together, not incrementally, so how is it possible? Read on in my above post, which I edited.

I never said that they weren't Christian, Jews or Wiccan, I only opined that they haven't fully examined all of the issues, connotations and implications that the scriptures as they relate to accepted science bring with them.

No need to leave it at that. We are maintaining a level of decorum and civility necessary to continue our amiable debate.

I have no quarrel with your right to an opinion, I am only challenging your opinions with my own.

 

I knew Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein was a friend of mine.

But you Broncozilla...

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesi.../personal.html

 

I honestly know people with degrees in theology and paleontology from Christian Universities and Public Universities and mixtures there of, as well as ordained Ministers and Deacons that are also "experts" in evolution. To say they haven't weighed them together is an understatement.

People that are evolutionists and deny religion, or religious people that deny evolution at least microevolution are BOTH bring Faith into science.

Microevolution is how God makes adjustments to life in the universe. I'll let the Catholics or whoever argue the Original Sin...thats a different debate. I didn't eat that apple...

And don't tell me men have 13 ribs either

It also says were supposed to Stewards of the Earth and not merely plunder it. Sounds like God was something of an environmentalist.

Now I'm wondering if God is a liberal...he created a bunch of new things that hadn't been done before....

 

Your questions are the result of simple ignorance. (No offense intended).

 

Is that rheteric, or did you actually know the man?

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."

Either the sources that I read this statement and others from used it out of context to misrepresent the connotation, or your sources have done the same. (I have to consider this possibility since Christianity is not currently politically correct, especially with the new, liberal, secular media)
Its easy to see how such statements could be take or misconstrued to indicate a belief in theism. I apologize, as I was paraphrasing such quotes, and meant not to mislead anyone.

 

Not quite. Such persons (I mean not to seem overcritical, as I was once among them) either have to disregard the scriptures as inaccurate, lies, or simply fables in order to believe in evolution. (and many of the more "liberal" theolgists and paleontologists do)


I highly doubt that. Any being that says he is Lord, and that you shall have no other gods before him, lest you spend eternity in torment is not liberal by any measure that I know of.

 

The people I referred to are some of the most conservative people I know when it comes to religion and temperance.

There's a reason Government and Religion were separated in the Constitution.

 

Conservative by whose standards?


The word "separation" does not appear in the constitution in reference to government and religion. It says that the government shall adopt no religion.

 

Didn't claim to be quoting the First, but here it is:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


BTW

Evolution is not organized religion.

 

That about sums it up.

 

As I said, you won't find the word "separation" in there, but you do find "God" in the Constitution.


I beg to differ, sir, that is a matter of opinion.

 

Then that means physics is religion;

Chemistry is a religion;

Geology is a religion;

Biology is a religion;

Kinda like the Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostal, Catholics, etc...