God you people are so stupid. The earth is billions of years old. Scientifically proven fact. And you know what macro evolution is? It's just a bunch of micro evolutions put together. So so stupid

This "mechanism" that creates new genes is called mutation. DNA, over millions of years, does tend to change randomly. Individuals with unfavorable mutations die out, while those with favorable mutations live to pass them on. Eventually, enough mutations are in the gene pool of a population that it can be consideted a separate species from its ancestral species.

Did you fail biology or something?

The bible sez : Nudity is the best thing on earth We shall be nude ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[quote]Evolution is a fact, but...[/quote] ~but dinosaurs aren't.

I'm guessing that you haven't actually done any research and just posted some idiot's paper.

[quote]This Darwinism mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains.[/quote] Ah, there's the rub. From [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html]talkorigin.org[/url]: "Most, if not all, 'entirely new features' are modifications of previously existing features. Bird wings, for example, are modified tetrapod forelimbs, which are modified sarcopterygian pectoral fins. A complex, entirely new feature, appearing out of nowhere, would be evidence for creationism." And also from [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB920.html]talkorigin.org[/url]: "What exactly is a new body part? Most evolutionary changes are changes to existing structures, not additions de novo. We have transitional sequences showing the evolutionary transition of fins to legs, plus some understanding of the genetic changes involved (Zimmer 1998, 57-85). Do legs qualify as a new body part? We also sometimes see duplication of body parts. It is not uncommon for cats to have extra toes, for example. Should not these qualify as new body parts?" As for the claim your claim that evolution "has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information," that is [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html]demonstrably false.[/url]

Evolution is awesome

Of course there is a mechanism for the creation of life. Our atmosphere began to develop gases capable of creating amino acids that are the building blocks of life. This has been tested in a very famous experiment.

Mr Johnson is eloquent and put together, O give him that, but his claims are simply untrue. We haven't directly observed evolution on such a grand scale because it inevitably takes a large amount of time. Embryology, comparative anatomy, and the fossil record all work in tandem to reasonably reach the conclusion that all organisms share a common ancestor and that species are modified over time via genetic 'misprints.'

[quote]Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true. If “evolution” merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing environmental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in laboratory experiments. For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before. A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were. Almost all illustrations of “evolution in action” in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearance of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversible population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although “adaptive variation” would be a better term. It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as “evolution,” because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God’s participation being needed at any step along the way. Charles Darwin assumed that macroevolution was merely microevolution extended over very long periods of time. Biology textbooks, museums, and television programs still teach people to make the same assumption, so that examples of microevolution are used as proof that complex animals and even human beings evolved from simpler organisms by a similar process. The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin’s theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony. The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because [b]its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b] It is true that there are patterns of similarity among living creatures. For example, humans, apes, mice, worms, and even plants have many similar genes. The important question is not whether there are similarities among all living things but whether those similarities came about through a natural process akin to the observable examples of adaptive variation that we find in textbooks and museum exhibits. One mistake Christians often make in debating evolution is to take on too many issues at once, rather than starting with the most important problem and solving it first. For example, evolution requires a time scale of many millions of years, while many people understand the Bible to allow for an earth history of only a few thousand years. The evolutionary time scale is debatable, but debating it involves several complex scientific disciplines and distracts attention from the most important defect of the theory of evolution. The only mechanism the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection, illustrated by the survival of the insects that happened to be resistant to an insecticide. [b]This Darwinism mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information[/b] or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis. The Bible teaches, “In the beginning God created” and “In the beginning was the Word.” A simple way of explaining this basic principle is to say that a divine intelligence existed before anything else and that intelligence was responsible for the origin of life and for the existence of all living things, including human beings. [b]No matter how much time we might allow for evolution to do the necessary creating, the evidence shows that the process would never get started[/b] because all evolution can do is to further minor variations in organisms that are already living, without any change in their basic classification. When the Bible says, “In the beginning God created” (Gen 1:1), it is presenting us with a fact, which we need to know to understand everything else, including what we were created for and how God wants us to live. The Bible also says that God created men and women in His own image. That, too, is a fact. If it were not true, there would be no science, because [b]no theory of evolution can demonstrate how intelligence came into existence[/b], including the intelligence of misguided people who misuse science to try to explain creation without allowing any role to God. “In the beginning was the Word.” The Bible says it and, properly understood, the evidence of science confirms it. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling fantasy, not fact. [spoiler]By Phillip E. Johnson. Edited by me.[/spoiler][/quote] Very interesting read. Thank you.

There are some truly fascinating theories on the evolution of intelligence. At this time, they seem to coincide with the theory of evolution making the theories, plausible. Whatever the case, it would be prudent to let truth lead us to our beliefs instead of letting our beliefs lead us to truth.

You do know there is no way in hell we were intelligently designed.

Beings nit of this world.are.fact..aliens..are they in gods image? Becausr globally we believe in different gods...but an alien is recognized throughout. Thats more real than any santa claus or satan. Now what if.this.intelligence came from a test tube...like we do to monkeys..that giant burst in intellect was actually created by someine like us... Now, theres.something that is somewhat easier.to.grasp than a big white guy in the sky. Because we do that..and we are in "his" image. Truth depends.on where you put.your chair. Stop trying to make your truth ultimate. Thats religions downfall eventually. We will grow. And we will shuck these juvenile beliefs as we did santa. If youre scared, about death, and need a god dad to take the burden of.your fear and confusion. Thats fine. but dont think for a second your truth is the truth. At least science is ever changing finding a better way. Where as religion is stuck on their knees, letting their sons get poked by old men. You can live judged. The rest of us, well..adam and eves nipple-less and belly buttonless fairy tell just isnt good enough. The bible is terrorism at worst. Government at best. None the less a story. Not truth. Empirical evidence is the word you all are looking for. Not "truth" or observable evidence"

And here's another point: say the science behind the age of the earth was off by some factor (the evidence is pretty compelling, this is just hypothetical). Ok, so then the earth isn't 4.6 Billion years old, how off are they? Is it 3.6 Billion? 1 Billion? 500 million? See where I'm going with this? The earth is surely not under 10,000 years old like the Bible speculated some 2,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if it's 1 million or 4.6 Billion years older, does it?

You've copy and pasted something whereas it would take me a very large amount of time to come up with an argument to everything. So simply going to tell you what I heard a little girl ( maybe 4 years old ) ask her dad when I was in am Indian restaurant the other week. " if god made the world then who made god ? " his response as a Christian was " that's a very good question " and he swiftly changed topic. I'm not saying that evolution is irrefutable however its more likely than simply god created it. The evidence points that way even if it doesn't prove it.

Your argument contradicts itself. God is even less observable than evolution. So why use the argument that evolution is not observable in a lab to disprove it's existence? Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory. If it didn't seem to fit in with what we have observed over years of study and research, then it wouldn't be so accepted in the scientific community. It wouldn't be taught in schools as "fact". But then we're both biased, aren't we? I doubt we'll ever change eachother's views.

Macro and Micro evolution aren't a real thing.

Evolution can be witnessed in bacterium and virus. Which in a small scale you can see most if lifes major processes. The human need for a governing system, a father figure, and someone to blame...thats also a survival trait, a part of evolution. We find the easiest ways to survive. And wasting brain power trying to understand something and inconceivable as life or as vast universe is why we created.."the word" if we were to know exactly why of everything, our brains would be so large it would shorten our life span. Which goes against natural will. We find the simplest way to carry on. Hense the simple minds of a religtard. Its evolution. Now to debate this properly yoi need a room and a week. These half hearted threads are doing nothing for ya. Open your mind to the idea life isnt linear, there is no begining and no end. These are just functions of an.underpowered brain trying.to.understand without.killing.itself

The downside to intelligent design is as a theory there isn't any proof so it's justification lies in faith...which can be easily minplulated to ones own agenda making it suspect.

Instead of copy and paste, not an argument to me. Have valid one in your words.

OP is mildly smarter than Ken Ham.

Nice job contradicting yourself.

Tl;dr

By any chance did the writer of this ever hear of the idea of speciation by reproductive isolation? Because I really don't think so.