Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[bluedes]

---

i think you have a distorted view of how evolution works.
evolution is wrong because there are only 4 basic sequence and it doesn't increase?

its not the number of basic sequences that is supposed to increase, its the number of instances(unsa kadaghan) and permutations(arrangement) of it.

sorry to disappoint you.. but i think you misunderstood my post..
there are only 4 basic building blocks of a nucleotide sequence (DNA).. that's adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine.. all those 4 just keep on repeating and repeating, in different combinations or orders, but its still basically just 4. where's the *evolution* in that? you may have more chromosomes than a tadpole, but still, its composed of just 4, the same as the tadpole. its like you may have a longer dick than the tadpole (it may look different, it may act different), but its still basically just dick..

anyway, lets say you haven't *evolved* yet and you only have 4 different body parts in you..
so evolution is basically saying that you "acquire" more body parts of the same kind? that's not evolution, you're just repeating and repeating..

on the genetic level, there really isn't any "acquisition" going on..
but on the phenotypic level, it would look like you "acquired" a new trait.. but the fact of the matter is, you did not acquire it, you just have a different combination of sequence so that it will unlock that trait...

if this were mega-man, its like you reorganized the cells in your body so that your laser arm could fire that kind of ammo..

[schmuck]

sorry to disappoint you.. but i think you misunderstood my post..
there are only 4 basic building blocks of a nucleotide sequence (DNA).. that's adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine.. all those 4 just keep on repeating and repeating, in different combinations or orders, but its still basically just 4. where's the *evolution* in that? you may have more chromosomes than a tadpole, but still, its composed of just 4, the same as the tadpole. its like you may have a longer dick than the tadpole (it may look different, it may act different), but its still basically just dick..

anyway, lets say you haven't *evolved* yet and you only have 4 different body parts in you..
so evolution is basically saying that you "acquire" more body parts of the same kind? that's not evolution, you're just repeating and repeating..

on the genetic level, there really isn't any "acquisition" going on..
but on the phenotypic level, it would look like you "acquired" a new trait.. but the fact of the matter is, you did not acquire it, you just have a different combination of sequence so that it will unlock that trait...

if this were mega-man, its like you reorganized the cells in your body so that your laser arm could fire that kind of ammo..

Evolution has nothing to do with increase in the number of building blocks. Where ever did you get this idea?

[Homo_quaeritans]

what the other guy said means, you have to be something other than matter for it to be called evolution.

but hey, i think the people here are discussing Darwinian Evolution that apparently evolved into neo-darwinian Evolution...so on.

[Sinyalan]

TO sum it up ... in what I believed in , the CREATION STORY is true and that EVOLUTION THEORY extracts its FACTS to conclude that CREATION is the TRUTH . Without EVOLUTION , the CREATION is useless .

hmmmm... isn't it the case that creation is prone to use science to dispute science? What I see about all creationism is that once there is new stuff found... creationists camp are quick to say "it's false" than observe and measure. Creation vs. Evolution is just one big battle between who presents the facts. But I lean on to the latter because "Science" shows the probable life appearance in detailed perspective. Like the fossils they found in Ethiopia [homonid species] that lived 4.4 million years ago. This, rather you can't find in the bible.

[bluedes]

Evolution has nothing to do with increase in the number of building blocks. Where ever did you get this idea?

huh? welcome to Genetics 101 bro..

[bluedes]

what the other guy said means, you have to be something other than matter for it to be called evolution.

but hey, i think the people here are discussing Darwinian Evolution that apparently evolved into neo-darwinian Evolution...so on.

yeah.. i definitely agree..

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

hmmmm... isn't it the case that creation is prone to use science to dispute science? What I see about all creationism is that once there is new stuff found... creationists camp are quick to say "it's false" than observe and measure. Creation vs. Evolution is just one big battle between who presents the facts. But I lean on to the latter because "Science" shows the probable life appearance in detailed perspective. Like the fossils they found in Ethiopia [homonid species] that lived 4.4 million years ago. This, rather you can't find in the bible.

That is true in most cases . For my part , in what I believed in ..... thats how it works that CREATION needs SCIENCE to extraxt its TRUTH behind all the FACTS of EVOLUTION . Both has to co exist . Indeed , its a big battle bro Sinyalan but the thing is , if we only present the FACTS without the TRUTHS , its not fruitful at all .

@SCHMUCK ..... point taken but still not convincing .

[schmuck]

huh? welcome to Genetics 101 bro..

seriously, provide citations. I want to learn. I have never read anything about this claim before.

[brownprose]

That is true in most cases . For my part , in what I believed in ..... thats how it works that CREATION needs SCIENCE to extraxt its TRUTH behind all the FACTS of EVOLUTION . Both has to co exist . Indeed , its a big battle bro Sinyalan but the thing is , if we only present the FACTS without the TRUTHS , its not fruitful at all .

@SCHMUCK ..... point taken but still not convincing .

Bro spring...I think we should thresh the use of semantics here.

When science says/declares that it's a scientific fact...it also means scientific truth. If you propound biblical truth to affirm/reinforce scientific truth, then it becomes a religious opinion.

Scientific truths need no attestation outside of the scientific domain (bible, religious opinion) for its (scientific) findings/facts to stand.

[chad_tukes]

Hehehe ... when is a FACT , considered a FACT ? Does it take to be with limited observation ? Solid concrete evidences that are unaltered ? if that is the case ... FACTS are FACTS as ive said but it doesnt construe being the TRUTH because facts are results from findings that are supported by something .

Emphasizing more on SCIENCE's HYPOTHESIS guessing and prediction game .... it doesnt hold truth at all . Evidences out of findings could be decieving themselves at all and wherever it favors , a SCIENTIST can easily establish it as a FACT .

To rephrase your example "Spring is male. Spring is a mod. i can't change Spring to a woman unless he wants to (*** change). "

Spring is female . Spring is not a mod .

- You can only ASSUME and PREDICT that I am man because you have a lot of basis for it that I am masculine but what if I really am a WOMAN ? It is the truth but you only have the facts .

- You can only ASSUME and PREDICT again that I am a mod . Is it because the one posting is SPRINGFIELD_XD_40 ? What if he left it and didnt log out and somebody is tripping on something by using the account and posting in good faith ? It is the truth but you only have the facts .

Your FACTS can change dramatically once you found out its not the TRUTH .

================================================== =============================
After 60+ pages of arguments , debates and discussion .... I hope that people would still make this an enjoyable place to hang out and post by co existing with everyone and avoiding insults and side steppings . Afterall , we all EVOLVED from the MONKEYS CREATED by GOD .

hehehe... so you are a female afterall? shocking. but really, this debate about how or when a fact is considered a fact deserves a new thread to discuss; we're going way off topic. although i still insist that hard facts cannot be changed.