sort by best latest
Lee John says
Darwin has been to the Galapagos Islands - I haven't. So while I still don't believe in Evolution, I have to admit he as a point.
Darwin also Visited Australia. He came as far inland as Bathurst in New South Wales. Maybe a trip to NSW or the Galapagos Islands might help you. I lived in Bathurst for three years.
Darwin also said himself & it's recorded/written somewhere, that even he couldn't imagine how the eye could have evolved from no eye.
Check with David Attenborough. He's worked out how the eye has evolved. Darwin never claimed to have all the answers but he did create a great launch pad for future men and also women of science.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Helen Stuart says
I have recently begun to question the 7 day creation story myself. It has also slowly occurred to me that you can't have so many races from only 1 set of parents. Yet, since like produces like, I still can't believe in Evolution. Thx for your comment
You can have all the races from one race. In, fact that's exactly what happened. Very few people know it. Different shades came out of one race. As they moved around the world, they become more divided until it looks like each has a separate source.
Sri T - how does that account for different hair color and texture, eye color, facial features, and body types? Also, quoting Link 10103, how can 2 Asian parents have black and white children?
It takes serious research. Thanks to DNA the mystery was solved. A lot of people do not want to hear the conclusion. It has upset a lot of people. I'll give you a hint. It starts in Africa with genetic changes in birth appearances. It still happens.
Sri T, are you able to provide any links to credible sources that back up your claim?
I have heard mankind originated in Africa. That does not account for people from the far-flung corners of Earth who do not resemble Africans in any way.
The keyword is "melanin" or the lack of it. That word multiplied times hundreds of thousand of years plus constant reproduction of similar humans.
Melanin is inherited. If an Irish person went to sub-Saharan Africa, he'd fry to a crisp. If a coal-black African went above the Arctic Circle in winter, he'd have Vitamin D deficiency problems. Their descendants would suffer as well.
But what does an African born without melanin look like? Then go back over thousands of years or more. Then let that group multiply and leave Africa.
An albino African American still has wooly hair, a wide nose, and thick lips.
not all of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJCgMilt2gY
- See all 11 commentsHide extra comments
Lawrence Hebb says
Yes it is interesting. Also, some creatures begin in water and walk on land, like frogs starting as tadpoles.
Evolution generally speaking takes a very long time to arrive at changes that can be noticed. Are humans evolving? Yes. Present day Caucasians tend to be taller than past generations.
Rod Marsen - we are all getting taller, due to improved nutrition.
Say Yes To Life improved nutrition alone would not, could not do the job. The ability to become taller has to already be there. Better nutrition is the catalyst.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Robert the Bruce says
RTB - the reason I don't believe in Evolution is because of the overwhelming evidence that like produces like. Even something as simple as skin color; sure, the sun can change it, but a coal-black person could never be lily-white, or vice versa.
I see. Have you never heard of transitional fossils? Millions of fossils have been unearthed and many of them are transitional. Since evolution is normally extremely slow, you won't notice it in everyday life, except maybe on a microbial scale.
Hm - interesting. I'll have to look into that one.
Actually like doesn't really produce exactly like. This is the point of sexuality. The offspring isn't quite like either parent. My mother had hazel eyes and my father blue eyes. I have blue eyes and so my sister but my niece has hazel eyes.
Blue and hazel eyes run in your family; that's why. Even if you had a sibling with brown eyes, that would be due to genetic influence that happened to not be expressed in your parents. They still gave birth to people, not other animals.
Again I say evolution is generally a slow process involving the better choice. If we could see better with hazel eyes, for example, then blue eyes would eventually disappear since hazel eyed would be better at survival.
I've read the only significant difference in eye color is that dark brown eyes, such as African Americans have, handle brilliant sunlight better. Other than that, they all see the same.
Well, at some time in the past and possibly some time in the future eyes that handle brilliant sunlight best might be the difference between life and death. In other conditions blue eyes are no doubt best.
Why would blue eyes be best, if all eye colors see the same?
Do we really know that all eye colors see the same? Just how would you go about finding out if this is in fact true or in fact not the case? If hazel eyes are best in some situations then blue eyes would no doubt be best in other situations.
Check this out: https://www.vspenvisionnewsletter.com/2014/07/does...
I read the two articles. Again I say that there isn't a test that will prove, for example, that a person with hazel eyes will see red the same way as a person with blue eyes. And you have stated that hazel eyes are best in some situations.
There is a reason why so many eye colors exist in the first place. There is no reason they cannot continue to exist.
No reason at all...for the moment. You yourself said that hazel eyes were more advantageous under certain conditions. Who knows what the future will be like?
Where did I say hazel eyes had the most advantage? The only advantage I mentioned is dark brown eyes being able to handle bright sunlight better. Even then, the whole world is not like the Equator. There's room for all eye colors on Earth.
Ah! But what if through global warming much of the world becomes like the equator and so there is an advantage in having hazel eyes? And it may go the opposite way. Sure, room for all eye colors. Nice to keep your options open. That's evolution.
But the genetic information remains. For evolution to happen genetic information has to change. evolutionists argue that it gets added to but that has never been recorded (every instance is where genetic info is deleted)
There is no need to make a choice right now or in the near future when it comes to the color of the eyes of humans. But having choices and options, well, that is a good thing. Genetic information can remain dormant, not in use for the present.
- See all 18 commentsHide extra comments
H.B. Fortinberry says
Yes there are Christians that believe in evolution and don't see it as a threat to their religious beliefs. This makes me think that there might really be something to Christianity.
Thanks for the reply to my comment. I appreciate where you are coming from but disagree with macro evolution (between the species) because I see no proof. Micro evolution (within a species) I have no problem with. But I will look at your theory.
It's unfortunate that so many people are fundamentally closed minded, and this closed mindedness makes them respond to anything that doesn't adhere to what they have been told by those in their closed (minded) circle. This goes for ALL people...
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Rod Marsden says
True, there are variations within any given species. Cats have amazing variety; you almost can't tell what their offspring will look like. Yet, cats only give birth to cats; same with people. Horses and donkeys produce mules, but they're sterile.
Ah but the point is you do have variations and over time those variations produce variations. This is how evolution works. Eventually two variants on different paths will no longer be able to mate with one another but only with their own kind.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
P J G says
I looked up "Theistic Evolution". This is interesting! It could be God created a few species of animals, along with the first humans; that could explain how all those animals fit on Noah's ark!
Hmmm! There were once lots of dinosaurs that went extinct . I suppose they were all too much for Noah's ark or had existed at a much earlier time . Noah's ark rings true if it was a local flood. There were lots of creatures before Humans came along.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Ian Moone says
Various species have different particular traits. We all heal from wounds, but the Axolotl can regrow severed limbs; most animals can't. That's why I don't believe in Evolution.
Everything is there just for us...is thuis not a bit egoistic. We are not the top or end product of evolution. We are just a side product evolved to live on land. We are not evolved to live under water, so who is better a jellyfish or us?
To believe that all creatures have taken the same evolutionary path is foolish and can lead to not believing in evolution. The whale's ancestors were land creatures but the whale is a sea creature. Humans took a different path.
Talking of the difference between Micro evolution (the changes that happen within a species) and Macro evolution (where one species changes into another). I have no problem with Micro evolution. It's the Macro that's got problems
Everything out there could exist without us Peter, & in fact would probably be better off without us..However we couldn't exist without it, & so to me as a logical thinker that would suggest it was put there for us..Pure awareness/Consciousne
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide