Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

Also, you acknowledge microevolution happens, yet you quipe about how many bad mutations their are. If mutations are so faulty, how do you explain microevolution?

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

Humanity is a really bad example.

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

Even though you insisted it was, being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia really isn't detrimental. Besides that, being beneficial is irrelevant since evolution means change.

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

That's because it's a little impossible to have a gradient for EVERY species.

The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them. Look at this article on horse "evolution" http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/i3/horse.asp.

Please, experts know the difference between a mutated human and another species.

Look below for my answer.

Other than the fact that we've found many examples of lesser-evolved very human-like remains consistant with the theory (the fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is irrelevant)

The fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is not irrelevant, a perfect gradient would give evolution a strong basis, an imperfect one (especially like the one we have) simply makes the theory seem less likely.

and we've found remains back from those two, showing common ancestory. Did you read the link on human ancestory I listed?

There is no way to show common ancestory. The problem is that first of all, if you look at those skulls/remains they look similar enough to human skulls to be remains of human beings or slightly mutated human beings. (if you haven't noticed many of the skulls are partly decomposed)

And what's your comment on micro adding up to macro? You agree things change in small ways... After 1000 years, do they what, stop being they get too different? I don't understand your logic. Why WOULDN'T they keep changing until they were a different species?

They would change in small ways, but after a very long period of time they could still be approximately the same as they were at the beginning of that time. (of course many species would die out) The theory of evolution sees these changes and decides they would certainly be capable of causing the evolutionary tree. We do not know even that with the information we have. (we do not even know if these mutations would be capable of changing this hypothetical single cell into humans (albeit gradually), therefore even that macro-evolution can occur is a theory.) Saying that it is a theory like gravity, is ridiculuous because we have never indeed seen it in action.

Ok, you have population of deer in a certain enviroment. However, after a long drought there's a sudden shortage of food. Some of the deer migrate away to a different enviroment to find more food, so there's no two populations in two distinct enviroments. They adapt to those enviroments differently. One population may start being nocturnal to avoid pretadors, while in the other only the long-antlered deer survive because only they can knock food from trees. So you then have one population who turned nocturnal, and another that's solely long-antlered. The two cannot interbreed because they are awake at different times. Speciation(a very common form).

Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits.

Genetic mutations have always been possible by the properties of DNA and RNA themselves. They have numerous safety-checks, and they're about 99% foolproof. But less than 1% of the time, something screws up. Denying the fact that there were mutations in the past with the argument that there's not pictures of it is naive.

Oh yes, there were mutations, but does that give the theory of evolution any evidence, no. It gives it a possible method of working, but no actual evidence.

Yes, but using the fossil record you can see the similarities of certain species and how they changed over time.

Those fossil records aren't as full as you seem to think.

Hardly. The massive pre-Cambrian explosion of speciation occured just after the atmosphere became oxygenated(is that a word? xD). This "coincidence" gives far more evidence for evolution.

I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Have you ever heard of Mendel? He basically proved genetic drift. I don't understand how you can support micro-evolution, yet argue against macro-evolution. One leads naturally to the other.

Not without the capability to evolve in all ways it doesn't. Even then, that everything evolved from a cell is still far far away from being proven. To show that, yes you would need to travel back in time.