You guys - Darwin could have a point! Check this out!!!

1. 80

   Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years ago

   You guys - Darwin could have a point!  Check this out!!!
   
   I have never believed in Evolution.  I still don't, but a couple days ago, I was at the local zoo, and saw this animal.  I couldn't believe it - it looks just like the Darwin fish, doesn't it?  It is called an Axolotl, a Mexican salamander that breathes underwater.  What do you guys make of this???
   
   

   replyreport
2. 44

   travelezeposted 8 years ago

   Yep i fully believe Darwin, people have said to be even born with gills When you look in the world things evolve all the time

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 53

      Ian Mooneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Darwin also said himself & it's recorded/written somewhere, that even he couldn't imagine how the eye could have evolved from no eye.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
3. 61

   helenstuartposted 8 years ago

   It's an awesome little fish thingy. It looks like something from Dr. Seuss. I think Darwin was way ahead of his time and had some of the best answers we've had yet, but I still think there are some things left to be accounted for. And NO I'm not a seven day creationist.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Sri Tposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Sri Tposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sri T, are you able to provide any links to credible sources that back up your claim?

      replyreport
   6. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Sri Tposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The keyword is "melanin" or the lack of it. That word multiplied times hundreds of thousand of years plus constant reproduction of similar humans.

      replyreport
   8. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      Sri Tposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   10. 80

       Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       An albino African American still has wooly hair, a wide nose, and thick lips.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       Sri Tposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       not all of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJCgMilt2gY

       replyreport
4. 53

   Ian Mooneposted 8 years ago

   In my opinion the reason why there are no links from species to new species, is because there didn't need to be any links..What was happening during the process of evolution was species evolving slightly due to their surroundings, but the new species were just the next logical steps in the whole process..For example the mongrel dog has evolved into many breeds of dogs, but if you were to stick them back out into the wild they would slowly evolve back to the mongrel dog..However it's always going to be a dog, & it's not likely that your'l wake up one day & you've got a sheep laying there instead of your dog!lol.. Everything out there is there for us, & so in my opinion the whole process the big bang etc then evolution was all designed to happen just for us....All the animals out there are all mother nature in action (pure awareness) just like all the plants & flowers etc, & without them we wouldn't be here to see & enjoy them....I mean is it a chicken or is it an egg laying machine?, & is it really a cow or just a walking living breathing (take it where you want) milk factory?lol....The most amazing one for me is the Wood Frog, stick it in your freezer for as long as you want to, then one day take it out & stick it in front of your fire & when it thaws out it comes back to life!..So for years i didn't believe in the theory of evolution, but there is a default theory (the truth) which is there/here to be worked out by anyone. :-)

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 72

      lawrence01posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   5. 53

      Ian Mooneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
5. 61

   Robert the Bruceposted 8 years ago

   I'm curious, SayYes. Why don't you accept evolution?
   
   Saying you don't "believe" in evolution is incorrect. Most of evolution is based on what scientists have observed and come to conclusions about with the evidence left behind for us. Acceptance or rejection of evolution should be based on known facts, not "belief."
   
   It's my guess that you (like most who deny evolution) have not taken much time to read credible scientific explanations for the theory. This was my case until I began to study evolution for myself. Many of the "problems" that my religious upbringing taught me about evolution turned out to be no problem at all!
   
   I don't write this to condemn you or intimidate you. I was just curious as to what keeps you from accepting what over 99% of qualified scientists accept. What alternative theory do you accept?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Robert the Bruceposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hm - interesting.  I'll have to look into that one.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Why would blue eyes be best, if all eye colors see the same?

      replyreport
   10. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   11. 80

       Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Check this out: https://www.vspenvisionnewsletter.com/2 … MO04cLwtMs
       http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2682

       replyreport
   12. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   13. 80

       Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       There is a reason why so many eye colors exist in the first place. There is no reason they cannot continue to exist.

       replyreport
   14. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
   15. 80

       Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   16. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   17. 72

       lawrence01posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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)

       replyreport
   18. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
6. 72

   lawrence01posted 8 years ago

   It's interesting. It's known that mammals that began on land went into the sea (the whale wasone). The Whale and Dolphin are both air breathing mammals that live in the sea. Neither show anything about evolution.  To me it shows God likes to be creative. By the way when genetic mutations happen in nature (as evolution says they must) it always takes the form of deletion from the DNA thus can't create new species.
   As I said God loves to create

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it is interesting.  Also, some creatures begin in water and walk on land, like frogs starting as tadpoles.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Rod Marsen - we are all getting taller, due to improved nutrition.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
7. 67

   Rod Marsdenposted 8 years ago

   I had a walking fish as a pet when I was a kid. It neither confirmed nor denied evolution for me but I am glad it is a starting point for someone.
   
   There are creatures that either lack our ability to evolve or have other avenues to evolution, some of which I am not aware of. They are asexual. In other words neither male nor female but in a sense a bit of both. For some simple forms of life they eat and expand until one day they split in two and form two separate but equal creatures. The creatures thus formed, however, have the same strengths and vulnerabilities as the original. What will kill one will kill the other. Asexual plants have evolved by the sharing of DNA information with other like plants. Like here doesn't mean exactly the same. Differences might be tiny but still there. Differences can be the difference between life and death, success or failure.
   
   We are sexual beings. We have evolved and continue to evolve. Instinctively we do not mate with those closest to us in terms of physical type. In other words brothers are generally not attracted toward sisters and so forth for very good reasons. In many cultures it is forbidden anyway because the results can be horrific. Variety is very much the spice of life. I have blue eyes and so does my sister. My father has blue eyes but my mother has hazel eyes. My sister married a man with blue eyes and yet her daughter has hazel eyes. Hence even though the hazel eyes information was not acted upon when it comes to my sister it was still there for her daughter to have beautiful hazel eyes. I am short like my father but relate more to books and writing than my father. I get my interest in literature from my mother. Neither my sister nor myself are exact duplicates of either of our parents and that is the point.
   
   We know from architecture that the average Caucasian British person is today taller than his ancestors of a hundred years ago. This is also true of your average Japanese person. With the Japanese it took less than a hundred years. We know of this change from old photographs and living people. So what is next on the agenda for evolution? I don't know.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
8. 72

   pitzeleposted 8 years ago

   Although it may appear as the creature described by Darwin in his theory, since this lizard is capable of existing and has clearly specialized through history, I don't actually see how Darwin was correct in his assertions.  There are many animals out there (scientists just discovered a frog that gives birth to tadpoles, not eggs!) that are amazing and we haven't seen them yet.  I'm afraid that after examining Darwin's writings, I cannot find any reason to agree with him as to the ORIGIN of life.  However, I would have to agree with him as to how creatures adapt through environment.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you. Like still produces like, though creatures - plants as well as animals - can adapt to their environment.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Adapting to your environment is evolution in a nut shell. Environments change and so do creatures.

      replyreport
9. 0

   coolnamebobposted 8 years ago

   Its no longer simply Darwin's ideas that describe Evolution. The countless scientists that have built upon his work have all added masses of details, evidence and data. Lets face it even the Catholic church have accept  the possibilty of a theistic evolution.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
10. 61

    Lotkposted 8 years ago

    Yes, God is creative! One thing I might add though, in response to a comment made by lawrence01 about evolution, is that the process that the evolutionists state as being foundational to our world is actually not a contradiction to God's ways.  Everything on this physical earth is actually a replication of a spiritual pattern or process that is revaled in scripture.  Don''t get too wrapped up in trying to down play evolution as a process having any validity; it actually does, but on a scale perhaps to broad to be able to empirically validate. I have written a theory of the universe with God, and His Word at the center, which took five years and 8000 hours, at least, of study and prayer to develop.  Please see: http://logicsofthekingdom.com

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    2. 72

       lawrence01posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       hfortinberryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       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...

       replyreport