What do you think of this article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_o...
It talks about how scientists are able to study the history of the AIDS virus because it mutates so fast. Here's my question: Do you believe the scientists are right about the virus mutating. If so, explain how that's not evolution. Consider this
Mysteries In Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOo...
The Young Age of the Earth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZK...
The Origins of Life
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record - Part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvy...
Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897...
Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w...
Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp1...
Atheist's NightMare: Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnV...
Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
There was a time when creationists said that God created all life exactly as it is now, 6000 years ago. They claimed that there was no proof that any organism ever changed.
Fast forward a few decades. There is now irrefutable proof that species do indeed change, that viruses mutate and so on. The creationists had to change their story or look foolish, so they started talking about microevolution and macroevolution, and about adaptation within created kinds. Some creationists now insist that they always believed in adaptation and knew that change happened, they just denied that crocodiles could turn into ducks (implying, of course, that scientists said that such things did happen).
Just wait a few decades. The evidence for change that creates new species will be so strong that even creationists can't deny it any more, at which point they'll pretend that they believed it all along. It's exactly the same process that happened when science proved that the earth really did revolve around the sun and that it was indeed round. There is a limit to evolution, that is why maco-evolution (one species "magically" changing into another) is false and micro-evolution (subtle changes within a species) is true.
Here's an example:
If a horse and a donkey reproduce, you get a mule
All male mules are sterile
80% of female mules are sterile
If a non-sterile female mule and a donkey reproduce, you get a donkey
If a non-sterile female mule and a horse reproduce, you get a horse
So you've hit the limit and now are coming back the other way. mutation is one of the main driving points of evolution, the first four answers show their lack of understanding of the theory, and so it isnt hard to figure out why they do not accept it
"microevolution is a known fact, macroevolution is an unproven theory"
there is no such thing as an unproven theory. you obviously lack the understanding of both what a scientific theory is, and evolution. the only difference between micro and macro is time, the same principles are in effect for both Please clarify what a mutating virus has to do with the theory of evolution and I will try to give you an answer.
Thanks!
Elder Greg
(((SFCU)))
*EDIT*
Note to Nomad; I do understand that the theory of evolution tries to substantiate it's claim using mutation as one of it's means of explanation. However, we creationist do not deny evolution withing a species. As Vot so aptly pointed out, the virus mutated, but was still a "virus". Because... AIDS is the byproduct of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's trail of bolognese sauce.
More info here: http://www.venganza.org/
What do you say to that, Mr. Scientist? :-D This is why the people who who disagree with evolution will never ever agree.
You are trying to prove something using Science to people who don't agree with science. I don't see what I virus has to do with primates evolving to humans?? Check your books, in a mutation something is lost. In evolution something is gained.
God loves you and so do I
Be Blessed there are two different notions- microevolution is a known fact, macroevolution is an unproven theory. read into it *hangs head* They'll just spout out something about "micro" and "it's still a virus", blah blah blah.
*sigh* You had to know it was coming. Is the virus mutating into bacteria? or is it still a virus? There's still no proof of macroevolution.
They've been resistant to facts and evidence for years; why would that change now ?
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983 Most creationists would define "evolution" as a virus developing into a complex multi-celled organism like a frog. Obviously nothing quite so dramatic is happening here.
You seem to be using the word "evolution" to simply mean "change". Well, everyone agrees that everything changes over time. A baby grows up to be an adult, but that is NOT called "evolution", it is simply called "development".
Most creationists would agree that things "adapt" to their environment, but argue against an organism "evolving" into a higher form or a different species. Creationists don't believe that mutation can create new forms, because new information cannot arise by mere chance. "Adaption" is simply rearranging the genes that already exist to create variations in the same species; "evolution" is creating entirely new genes to make new species.
----------------------
In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.
After some months, Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes鈥?notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon鈥檚 work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.
After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!
===edit===
Why the thumbs down? I answered the question. It is not my fault that you didn't like the answer!
===edit2==
"lainiebsky" below, seems to be trashing creationists for changing their theories when presentented with new evidence. Funny, I thought that ALL scientists did this, not just creationists. what does a mutating virus have to do with evolution..? evolution is not a virus.. GOD!! Thats all I'm saying.....
www.wayofthemaster.com
Have a good day! GOD BLESS!
| 