Discussion History Main / NetworkDecay

Many small changes accumulating over time create big changes. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution. Your car analogy fails because a car uses up gas as it moves. It needs this gas to power itself. A better analogy would be \\\"a car can drive 40 miles if it has enough gas to get that far, but with more gas, it could go further.\\\" Eventually, it will run out of gas, and hence it will not be able to power itself. There is a logical reason to impose a limit on this process. What reason is there for why evolution would have certain limits? Suffering through enough diseases will not give you wings, but that\\\'s beside the point. The point is that you have not provided any logical reason why evolution would stop at a certain limit.

I didn\\\'t say I believed chemical reactions caused the start of life. I don\\\'t claim to know how life originated, because I don\\\'t. I am merely saying that, IF the theory is correct, then that would mean chemical reactions can create life, not that life came randomly out of nowhere.

Evolution explains the california squid because the goal of natural selection is only that the individual survives LONG ENOUGH TO REPRODUCE, not to live itself a long time. If you reproduce right after you are born, then what are the chances that you will die before you can reproduce?

Also, 2 of your predictions for creation theory would be the case with either theory, and hence cannot be used as proof of either one over the other. None of my predictions for evolution theory would also make sense as predictions for creation theory.

I agree with you, divine creation does explain biological and genetic similarities. However, it doesn\\\'t explain why they would coincide with geographical similarities unless there is a possible migration route. Evolution does explain this, as I said above.

Also, DNA stasis is a myth.

Many small changes accumulating over time create big changes. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution. Your car analogy fails because a car uses up gas as it moves. It needs this gas to power itself. A better analogy would be \\\"a car can drive 40 miles if it has enough gas to get that far, but with a lot more gas, it could go a lot further.\\\" Eventually, it will run out of gas, and hence it will not be able to power itself. There is a logical reason to impose a limit on this process. What reason is there for why evolution would have certain limits? Suffering through enough diseases will not give you wings, but that\\\'s beside the point. The point is that you have not provided any logical reason why evolution would stop at a certain limit.

I didn\\\'t say I believed chemical reactions caused the start of life. I don\\\'t claim to know how life originated, because I don\\\'t. I am merely saying that, IF the theory is correct, then that would mean chemical reactions can create life, not that life came randomly out of nowhere.

Evolution explains the california squid because the goal of natural selection is only that the individual survives LONG ENOUGH TO REPRODUCE, not to live itself a long time. If you reproduce right after you are born, then what are the chances that you will die before you can reproduce?

Also, 2 of your predictions for creation theory would be the case with either theory, and hence cannot be used as proof of either one over the other. None of my predictions for evolution theory would also make sense as predictions for creation theory.

I agree with you, divine creation does explain biological and genetic similarities. However, it doesn\\\'t explain why they would coincide with geographical similarities unless there is a possible migration route. Evolution does explain this, as I said above.

Also, DNA stasis is a myth.