evolution debate

[Zenithar66]

if the GMOs are used, they had to pass lots of tests, before they are approved.

threre can be no mistakes to an unguided process. only results that are neutral.

"that proofs you wrong, because during the ages there can be bad mutations, which need to be fixed by other random mutations and if they are not corrected enough quickly, they will be lost."

sorry, but you are not getting me, you saying a mutation is bad is your opinion, in a blind unguided proccess, there is no good or bad mutations, becuase there is no purpose or plan for those percived bad ones to destroy, and by saying they "need" to be fixed simply tells me you dont understand evolution. There is no "need" for any particular mutation, do some research on the subject.


So, you believe, that the Earth and everything alive were created some time ago (obviously more than 6000 years ago) and since that time they didn't change at all?

I have no idea how th earth or organisms came to be and dont pretend to, what i will say is i hold no theological convictions whatsoever. Of course creatures change over time, what are you trying to get at?

[JackBean]

From what you wrote on this site, I understood, that you are for inteligent designer.
If not, I don't know, what are we talking about then

[Zenithar66]

From what you wrote on this site, I understood, that you are for inteligent designer.
If not, I don't know, what are we talking about then

I thought this sight was scientific? you are making so many presumptions, I am not in any way associated with the intellegent design movement, I find alot of it intersting and convining, but I form my own opinions for my own research.
I have come to the very sckeptical of alot of claims about evolutions mechanisms. that is all, I love science and knowledge.
I feel alot of people just accept things at face value without doing there own research on the subject..

[dryan]

reply to mothermary,

I am not advocating ID teaching in schools at this time, but I wanted to reply to your reference to pandas and people. This is the often cited argument against ID that basically assumes there is no intelligent designer because 1. some designs in biology are inefficient, wasteful and/or not very well designed (ei redundancy of the larynx nerve in giraffes). To the people that feel ID is valid, this argument just doesn't hold water...its a poor argument because is begins in incorrect assumptions. I will give a rudimentary analogy of what I mean and please read it in its entirety before making your judgement. Here goes: Lets say you find a pair of shoes on the sidewalk and can infer that it was made by someone with intelligence (intelligent designer) because its design (wasn't the result of years of erosion, rain, wind, etc). OK, now lets assume that you put the shoes on and walk around in them but you notice some flaws....there is too big of an arch for your foot which causes you a lot of pain, the sole of the shoe on your R foot is bigger than the sole in your left so that you walk gimply....as a darwinist would you conclude that the shoe is not designed by an intelligent designer because it is flawed...no, which brings me to my first point and flawed assumption of darwinists...intelligent design DOES NOT mean perfect design.
Now for point number 2: Lets say you happen to meet the intelligent designer of the shoe in which you ask "why you made such a poorly designed shoe?" He/she answers that he/she is a Podiatrist and made the shoe for a patient with abnormally high arches and a leg length discrepancy...Ahhh, so the shoe was designed well. The main point and difference is here is that when you know the motivation and intent of the designer...only then can you make an assumption about the purpose/quality of the design which brings me to my second point and second flawed assumption of darwinists....you cannot conclude that a design is flawed unless you know the intent/motivation of the designer...so to make this point, someone arguing against ID assumes that they know the mind and motivations of God. How is that? To further substantiate this flawed assumption, think about yourself. You grew up in a competitive society in which you studied, practiced and applied yourself to perfection for what??? to get a good job make good money, get a promotion, recognition and success...so you are motivated to do the best you possibly can....tell me, (assume you believe in God), what motivates God to make a flawless creation...peer pressure?Money? The point is, nobody can know what the designer had in mind when he designed...maybe the panda was designed exactly how he(God) wanted to design it. It is ridiculous (to me) to assume that you can know what the designer had in mind when he created something. So when Dawkins says "unintelligent design" he has to assume that intelligence means perfection (which it does not) and that he knows the mind and motivation of God (which he cannot).