well this explains why you don't see what others are talking about - check out the scientists i gave you a few posts back - maybe they can help you
If you think they bring up important evidence, by all means do what I did with other scientists; show us what they said, here. If you don't know enough to understand what they are writing about, how do you know it's right?
otherwise i don't see any point in continuing discussing evidence for creation with you when others have already done such an excellent job of doing so
I'm just pointing out that you haven't brought up any evidence for creationism. As you probably know, evolution is evidence for creation; it's just not the way you'd want it to be.
Actually I do know Darwin's four points. Just because only a few biology classes are required for psychology as opposed to anatomy, sociology and actual psychology classes, does not mean that I didnt take alot.
1. Individuals of a species is not identical. This can only be completely true for species that reproduce sexually. Where as most species who reproduce asexually would in fact have identical genes.
2. Traits are passed from generation to generation. And as traits are passed from generation to generation the traits that are not passed are then lost. If survival dictates that only individuals with certain traits can live then those with other traits will most likely die before passing their traits on and that species will have lost those traits forever. That is how natural selection works.
3. More offspring are born than can survive.
4. Only the survivors of the competition for resource will reproduce.
Close. The key is that every organism is slightly different than parents. And some of these differences will affect the survival of the individual. So any new changes can (usually they don't; most mutations don't do much of anything different) improve the likelihood of survival or decrease the likelihood of survival. Those new differences tend to become widespread in the population, perhaps leading to the disappearance of other traits.
Darwin's problem was that if inheritance is in the blood (as most scientists of the time assumed) then a new trait would be like mixing a drop of red paint into a barrel of white; it would be quickly swamped by all the existing organisms with the old trait. Then Mendel discovered that it was more like sorting bead than like mixing paint, and Darwin's theory was saved.
Of course, Watson and Crick, when they worked out the mechanism of heredity, showed how new traits can appear. And that confirmed Darwin's four points.
The last 3 points create a system in which a species will lose traits and become a more genetically simple species, eventually if this species is kept in isolation from others of its kind it will all be inbred as far as genetiv diversity goes.
Would be, if it weren't for mutations. But mutations occur constantly and increase genetic information in a population.
This is how a small founder population, with relatively low information, will increase information over time, and evolve to be different than the original population. This is well-documented.
And you took your biology classes before being drafted? Are you aware of how much our understanding of biology has changed since the Vietnam war?
Before and after. And during. My duties in the AF required being up to date on biology. But what we're talking about here, was settled well before I was drafted.
No wonder you believe in evolution.
I believe in God. I observe evolution happening. One requires faith; the other requires evidence. Perhaps you've confused the fact of evolution with a consequence of evolution like common descent.
Try to look at a textbook from this decade at least.
I retired just a few years ago, and one of the things I did before I retired, was review biology textbooks. Have you read a biology textbook lately? Many of the things you seem to be unsure about, are now well discussed in those textbooks.
Far as I know, there aren't any government biology textbooks. All are by private companies. I am concerned that some publishers don't use working scientists to write their books, and that does bring in errors. Most of those errors are things real scientists find frustrating or hilarious.
One textbook actually suggested the necks of giraffes were the result of natural selection alone. And that's a huge problem, because it assumes some kind of teleological effect. In reality, it was a matter of allometric growth before natural selection kicked in. That kind of thing.
The other thing that you might have missed, is epigenetics, which tends to explain sudden, but limited adaptation over a generation or two. Also, the discovery that many new genes come about by mutation of non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") rather than by gene duplication and mutation, which used to be thought was almost exclusively the source of new genes.
