A comment on another question sparked this. Those who believe in Creation often scoff at the idea of Evolution eg we can't be descended from Apes etc..Adam and Eve etc. Yet, someone answered with the idea that they believed in micro-evolution (being the small changes made as things develop in order to survive in changing enviroments (including humans)) and that you couldn't find a Christian who denied that. So I wanna know - I'm an Evolutionist (is that a word?) and an Agnostic so you don't have to convince me. I'm wondering if it's even possible, or is it hypocritical to believe in both?
sort by best latest
Actually, quite a few forms of life have been whipped up on special order in the modern era of genetic engineering. From mint-scented E. coli to Roundup-Ready corn, we've whipped up a lot of new organisms. But that's just a nitpick...
Your statement re: distinction between micro and macro - is what I thought. Evolution is evolution - Though, it's not up to me to make the argument that you can be both a creationist and believe in evolution. Thats up to the person who told me!
Scottcgruber: Sorry, I meant to specify, "No form of life was 'whipped up on special order' by a supernatural force." I've created my own lines of chicken blood (6C2) cells using genetic engineering to study beta-globin epigenetic modifications. :)
Yes, just like the sciences. I talked about this in my essay, "Outsiderness in the Scientific Community."
And "Clovis First" was not the brightest moment in the history of science
Factions with factions - yup. I agree about that. Interesting to see what people have to say
Tussin...selective breeding and variation within species has nothing to do with evolution. Just because I head south and acquire a tan, does not mean I am becoming a Mexican. My beard even seems to grow faster in the winter, yet I am not evolving.
CJ - if you understoof evolution - both micro and macro - you would understand it does not happen that fast - it is a process over time. Notice we no longer have completely hairy bodies - not necessary any longer. Again - provide info with your claim
Interesting answer. Thank you. I wanted to hear from someone like yourself, someone who has researched both aspects and is able to combine them in a coherent way instead of denying the possibility of one or the other. Thanks
The fossil record does not support evolutionary claims. There are no examples of specimens (that we can study) that are actively experiencing change. Evolution cannot be studied, observed, or reproduced in any environment. Yet people believe anyway.
CJ - rather than claiming this person is wrong - give us an answer with your claims explained in depth. What you are currently doing is giving your statements as fact with no back up. I can research everything this man has said, yet I cannot of you
Sledge: ever heard of antibiotic resistance? That is observed evolution.
And the fossil record is full of evidence. Every fossil ever found is "experiencing change."
I've tried to contact you via genesiscode.net, but the content is mostly about a year out of date. I am eager to get hold of your book (The Bible's Hidden Wisdom) and wondered if you had a date for finishing.