Adaption is not evolution... its where an organism becomes more able to live in the environment it is living in.... it doesnt turn into another animal... just gets better at living where it is... I suppose that this would be a good mutation, but it still doesnt change a bird into a fish
Shawn, first, the word is "adaptation" , not "adaption"...and you "throw" a ball, not "through" it...and it's eternity, not "eturnity".
..and the above statement "adapt[at]ion is not evolution" is incorrect. Take a glance at the word "evolution" in a dictionary.
A species may "evolve" - meaning change over time.The resulting change may well provide a means of adapting to a particular environmental pressure. On the other hand, sometimes a change is "neutral" - that is it confers neither advantage nor disadvantage. In either case a change over generations IS evolution...micro-evolution to be more precise.
Next, Chimps, Gorillas, and Orang-utans are pongids. Humans are "hominids". Hominoids include both pongids and hominids. It is within the super-family Hominoidea that evolutionists look for a "common link" between man and ape. Evolutionists do not believe that we "came from" apes; they believe that apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Next, "Big Bang Theory" is not part of the theory of evolution. One need not subscribe to the Big Bang Theory to believe in evolution.
Shawn, I share your belief in God and, I think, your enthusiasm, but Ophiura's advice to you was right on the mark. You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution. Many of the folks you are trying to persuade DO understand the theory, so unless you want to appear uneducated - and that's a bad place to start your effort at persuasion - you need to get up to speed on the theory you don't believe. At this point you're spending most of your time trying to disprove things that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution - like the "Big Bang Theory" and the idea that "man comes from apes".
As I said in an earlier post, you do yourself and your cause a disservice when your writing includes a bunch of malapropisms, spelling errors and grammatical errors. If you just ran your post through a spell-checker you'd catch a bunch of those errors like "biast", "adaption", and "eturnity". That would be a good start.
I'm sure you're a bright guy, and you obviously care about this topic. Why not try spending a little time in the books and then come out swinging? (And maybe you could find a good proof-reader to help for a while until you get your sea-legs
.)
The theory of evolution is vulnerable to rational attack. The "missing link" is a great place to start, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. I'll give you an example. People understand the various bird-beak evolution examples, like this: Through random mutation a bird is born with a different beak, and that beak makes him better at securing food in a place where it is otherwise difficult to get food. His funky beak makes him successful, so he's well fed and able to provide plenty of food for his offspring. His genetic advantage is passed to his offspring, so they also do better, out-produce, and out-survive the birds with the "old" beaks. (Yes, it's a terrible over-simplification.) But what about the hundreds and hundreds of much more complex physiological systems that require a series of steps before any competitive advantage is produced?
There are many essential bodily functions that are the product of a series of linked processes - sometimes as many as fifteen or twenty processes or "reactions" that have to take place in sequence or the end result is not achieved. Blood clotting is such a process. No competitive advantage is imparted by the presence of the first "reaction" or "process". In fact, no advantage is conferred unless and until ALL of the necessary processes take place in the proper order and clotting is achieved. How does the species continue to exist while all of the potential variants are randomly generated? How did we ever make it to an organism with clotting blood? There are literally hundreds of similarly complicated physiological systems that apparently just "arrived" as a package. :notsure: :thinking:
Maybe we were better off talking about ice cream...
Shawn, I mentioned two books in an earlier post. They helped me. Maybe they will help you.
Here's another great book from a slightly different view (unrelated to the evolution debate). It is entitled. "Letters From a Skeptic", and it is a collection of correspondence between father and son on the issue of God. It's an easy read. Dad, a crusty old curmudgeon, doesn't believe in God, and he tells junior just what the problem with the whole idea is. Dad doesn't pull an punches, and juniors answers are great. They helped me a lot.
