Perhaps there was a massive orgy between a bunch of gorillas, apes, chimps, and some dolphins, and the animals that got pregnet delived four or five human beings and voila.... we were born.
Biological evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. Or are you more interested in playing the semantics game than you are in having a grown-up discussion?
please explain the difference between adaptation and evolution and explain how they are mutually exclusive
Adaptaption is changes within a species. Evolution is changing from one species to another. You'd think more evolutionists would understand that. But then again, it's easier to get people to believe your religion when you purposely confuse your religious terms with scientific ones. Evolution is a religious term based on the assumption that the scientific fact of adaptation leads to evolution. Adaptation is a fact. Evolution is a religion based on the assumption that God doesn't exist. You can't have evolution without adaptation but you can have adaptation without evolution. In short, evolution is a religious belief that God doesn't exist and that everything came from a common ancestor. Adaptation is a scientific observation that things change over time. Adaptation makes no assumptions about where everything started. Evolution does. Name one scientific marvel that has been brought about by the study of "evolution."
Kalvin is out of his mind...rational religious people have found a way for evolution to be true and still fit in with the concept of a God. And evolution is not necessarily changing from one species to another, you need to read up on your biology again.
What you meant to say is that you can't defend your position. Yes it is necessary for evolution to be true that one species can change into another. Otherwise, how do you get from a single cell organism to a human? How do you get from energy to life? I realize that "science" (by "science" I mean the religious arm of science) has realized they have to confuse terms to get people to buy into evolution but that doesn't change the fact that Evolution requires more than adaptation. This is why it's impossible to talk about evolution with an evolutionist. They don't even know what it requires. They just think that because things change evolution is true. When actually it proves nothing. ID has no issue with things changing. Some people have this silly idea that they should cater their religion to the religious side of science. I don't see the point of that. I've yet to find a compelling reason to reject my religion for the religion of Evolution. I'm still waiting to find out what great things science has brought us due to this study of evolution. Seems to me if it's so important to the advancment of mankind, the study of evolution would have gotten us something by now.
"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift." -- Wikipedia definition of evolution Oh look, it doesn't necessarily have to be one species to another for it to be evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution -- They are not mututally exclusive, as much as it pains you to believe so. Are you also one of the guys who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old? The only way you should be saying they are mutually exclusive is with a literal interpretation of Genesis, in which case you are beyond help.
Kalvin, The point he is making - and which you constantly fail to understand - is that evolution isn't exclusively the changing of one species to another. Evolution just means to change over time. And if enough time is allowed and a big enough change occurs we do eventually end up with a different species. But Evolution doesn't exclusively mean the changing of one species in to another. There is no difference between adaptation though natural selection and evolution. They are different words with the same meaning. See this is what the religious constantly do. They try to muddy the waters of debate with pedantic semantics because they know that on a level playing field they are out of their depth. So if they can't win the argument about evolution they try to reduce it to an argument about the meanings of words.
What you're trying to convince us all of, is that if we believe the sky is blue then we believe in Evolution. Makes sense. And you finally admit to the religious part of evolution I've been taking about. What scientific experiment has been done and repeated to prove that is even possible? It is possible to believe in adaptation (fact) and not evolution (religion). Evolution requires adaptation but adaptation does not imply evolution. Before there used to be debates about micro and macro evolution. Now "science" has given up and just started to pretend they are the same thing. I really would like to know what scientific marvels have come about because of the study of evolution. No takers?
Evolution takes to long to occur to make any lab experiment possible. You know this and your demand for such an experiment shows your intellectual dishonesty. Adaptation does imply evolution. Adaptation is change, change is evolution. Still trying to muddy the waters with semantics? They are the same thing. They are different aspects/stages of the same thing. If you admit that animals change how can you not admit that if a big enough change occurs the creature would look so different and have such different abilities that it would be a different species? Since when has the amount of scientific marvels produced been a qualifier for truth? personally i think our gained knowledge regarding our species origin is marvel enough, No doubt you will disagree though.
The bible could be describing larger time intervals like maybe the first day when God created heaven and earth could be billions or millions of years. Maybe billions or milions of years is one God day. When reading the bible verse you can try emphesizing "the" or "the first day" like its God's day interval, the way God sees his day timeframe, the benevolent day.
Isn't that a bit of a far our constructed rationalisation? If the bible says 6 days, Then later we find out it took 6 billion years, the rational explanation is that the bible is wrong, not that one "god day" is equivalent to one billion years.
Does belief = The ability to construct illogical rationalities to support a preconceived opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
I see how you take the bible as a word for word form of writing and that is what is written but the bible is really parables and stories that make you believe that there is greater or larger meaning from the writing.
How did you come to that conclusion? You sit there and claim that a "god day" must be a longer length of time than a normal day and then accuse me of taking the bible literally? You are the one using far fetched rationalisations to justify believing something in the bible which is contradicted by basic science.
Based on your previous response. sorry about this semantic part but when you say "must" that does not represent what I said, you can replace it with "could be". What you say is irrational in the above quote is a form of belief that some could have. If you don't take the bible literally you can see how the "God day" concept could be possible.
Ok, first of all we humans also have 50% the same DNA as bananas. But it doesn't mean that we are half bananas from the waist up, or half bananas from the waist down.