Macro Evolutionists...

[darin]

Was just sorta thinking...how did blood 'evolve'? Did the veins and arteries accidentally mutate first, then later blood mutated from other stuff and start flowing? What about the heart? Did it mutate itself to become connected to the blood-highways? When or how would the brain have evolved to know to control a heart, or lungs? When the first small-cellular animals either decided or mutated into larger animals, which parts of the larger animals were among the first anomalies to happen/chance themselves into existence? If we can identify one mutation, say, an ancient animal mutating parts of itself, or having a mutation that was indeed a heart, what kept the heart alive - what tissue worked to ensure the DNA-footprint for a heart passed on to others of its kind? I put this thread in this subforum because macro evolution is most-certainly a religion akin to man-made global warming and what-not.

[Noir]

I'm not sure about the specific answers to your questions But I dare say the answer is wonderful. I'd suggest emailing evolutionary scientists / university labs for a proper answer or guidance to reading matter on the subject.

What I've always thought fascinating is that a creature like the star fish functions with no brain at all, which just seem alien!

[bullypulpit]

Evolution has decades of scientific research to support it. Creation "science" has centuries of religious dogma as its underpinning. Science wins.

[darin]

Evolution has decades of scientific research to support it. Creation "science" has centuries of religious dogma as its underpinning. Science wins.

Macro evolution is too steeped in mysticism/religion for my tastes. Props to you for having WAYYYYYYYYY outside the box thinking and massive-amounts of faith in your chosen religion.

[Noir]

Macro evolution is too steeped in mysticism/religion for my tastes. Props to you for having WAYYYYYYYYY outside the box thinking and massive-amounts of faith in your chosen religion.

The problem someone who doesn't believe in it has, is disproving the evidence in its favour. Like Erogenous Retroviral DNA. (ERVs)

ERVs Show beautifully the link between all life, and the only way it could exist in a creatist view of the world would be if a creator designed all life to look asif it had all evolved naturally, and why would a god do that? Makes no sense to me.

[darin]

The problem someone who doesn't believe in it has, is disproving the evidence in its favour. Like Erogenous Retroviral DNA. (ERVs)

ERVs Show beautifully the link between all life, and the only way it could exist in a creatist view of the world would be if a creator designed all life to look asif it had all evolved naturally, and why would a god do that? Makes no sense to me.

From a humanistic practical sort of view think of it like this. Ford makes car x. and car y, and car z. All share parts/similarity. The fact life has some similar features and design (DESIGN) screams 'intelligent design' to our systems. You're believing all creation - okay, just take 'mammals' alone - Mammals all just magically, by pure luck designed remarkably-similar reproductive systems/processes (few outlyers notwithstanding). I see how linked life is and think, just like when I see two fords using the same systems of ignition, gear-selection, braking, etc, and just KNOW the chances of these systems happening by pure random chance is so astronomically low as to consider it impossible.

I see the design of life and think the same thing. I have not faith-enough to believe the myriad of different-but-alike biological systems (entities, plants, etc) simply arrived in such close relation through "millions of years of random chance".

The more I study (layman) science and biology the more I'm driven to 'this shit is so complexly awesome and cool, and the probability of random chance or your beloved 'magic' somehow causing it - it MUST be part of a design'.

Macro evolution: Magic. Mystics. No answers.

Intelligent design: Order. Facts. Science. Evidence.

[Noir]

From a humanistic practical sort of view think of it like this. Ford makes car x. and car y, and car z. All share parts/similarity. The fact life has some similar features and design (DESIGN) screams 'intelligent design' to our systems. You're believing all creation - okay, just take 'mammals' alone - Mammals all just magically, by pure luck designed remarkably-similar reproductive systems/processes (few outlyers notwithstanding). I see how linked life is and think, just like when I see two fords using the same systems of ignition, gear-selection, braking, etc, and just KNOW the chances of these systems happening by pure random chance is so astronomically low as to consider it impossible.

I see the design of life and think the same thing. I have not faith-enough to believe the myriad of different-but-alike biological systems (entities, plants, etc) simply arrived in such close relation through "millions of years of random chance".

The more I study (layman) science and biology the more I'm driven to 'this shit is so complexly awesome and cool, and the probability of random chance or your beloved 'magic' somehow causing it - it MUST be part of a design'.

Macro evolution: Magic. Mystics. No answers.

Intelligent design: Order. Facts. Science. Evidence.

Hint - Study ERVs.

[darin]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else.

[Missileman]

From a humanistic practical sort of view think of it like this. Ford makes car x. and car y, and car z. All share parts/similarity. The fact life has some similar features and design (DESIGN) screams 'intelligent design' to our systems. You're believing all creation - okay, just take 'mammals' alone - Mammals all just magically, by pure luck designed remarkably-similar reproductive systems/processes (few outlyers notwithstanding). I see how linked life is and think, just like when I see two fords using the same systems of ignition, gear-selection, braking, etc, and just KNOW the chances of these systems happening by pure random chance is so astronomically low as to consider it impossible.

I see the design of life and think the same thing. I have not faith-enough to believe the myriad of different-but-alike biological systems (entities, plants, etc) simply arrived in such close relation through "millions of years of random chance".

The more I study (layman) science and biology the more I'm driven to 'this shit is so complexly awesome and cool, and the probability of random chance or your beloved 'magic' somehow causing it - it MUST be part of a design'.

Macro evolution: Magic. Mystics. No answers.

Intelligent design: Order. Facts. Science. Evidence.

Why would you think it strange that all mammals share common traits when they evolved from a common ancestor?

Complexity is an argument AGAINST design, not for it. Any designer worth a damn makes things work with the least amount of parts possible. An omnipotent designer would be able to make a sentient lump of clay with no need to eat or drink, no need for internal organs, skeletal structure, or nervous system.

[Noir]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else.

Sadly i don't have ten million years to spare. But you do have a computer, and google, and the ability to read, meaning you could study ERVs as much as you like. If you don't want to, fair enough, but in not doing so you are resigning yourself to ignorance in an issue that you profess to have interest in (by starting a topic about it) which would be most silly (:

[Missileman]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else.

Bigger hint: Place gazillions of single-cell organisms in an ocean...

P.S. No magic required.

[darin]

Why would you think it strange that all mammals share common traits when they evolved from a common ancestor?

Complexity is an argument AGAINST design, not for it. Any designer worth a damn makes things work with the least amount of parts possible. An omnipotent designer would be able to make a sentient lump of clay with no need to eat or drink, no need for internal organs, skeletal structure, or nervous system.

[Missileman]

Would you buy a car that was designed with pistons made from a million separate parts put together with screws?

[PostmodernProphet]

But I dare say the answer is wonderful.

perhaps even miraculous.....

and the only way it could exist in a creatist view of the world would be if a creator designed all life to look asif it had all evolved naturally

after all, we all know that everything is exactly what it looks like.....

Hint - Study ERVs.

so tell me, why do you think ERVs lead to a conclusion of macro evolution?......

[darin]

Would you buy a car that was designed with pistons made from a million separate parts put together with screws?

I don't like to buy cars with pistons at all - but when forced to do so, I prefer one designed...according to a plan.

The faith you have in mere coincidence, happenstance, blind-dumb luck, and statistical impossibilities is commendable if confusing to me.