Ikester, I'm beginning to wonder about these people you are debating with. They seem to be lacking some fundamental scientific knowledge. It would be interesting to read what you're talking about, would you like to link? Don't worry, talking here is time-consuming enough and I'm not going to take the discussion anywhere else myself.
Nah, I don't need for someone to call the calvery in for help for this person. I already know how that works.
2.) Life is always evolving because mutations happen, and in the natural world natural selection works on them. A more interesting question might be, are humans still evolving, given the fact that natural selection is not as big a factor in modern existence?
Does the aligator evolve? Or has it basically stayed the same for millions of years?
3.) I can only envisage evolution "stopping" if a species such as ourselves is able to stop mutations from occurring and being passed on to offspring, and also completely stop natural selection from being a factor. Were you aware that if we compare the skeletons of early modern humans and today's humans, you can see a trend toward the skeletons being more gracile and less robust? It would be interesting to speculate about what could be driving this.
Evolution has supposetly already gone on for millions of years, what would make it stop now?
5.) See above. I'm not sure what you're asking here exactly. If an organism is supremely successful in its environment, it is unlikely that the organism will change very much unless its environment changes too. When the environment changes, then the organism has to adapt or it will become extinct. I believe that genetic drift can also occur to a degree, though others here will be able to tell you more about that than me.
Ever heard of reverse adaptation? I'll be doing a thread on that later. It's where a life form can evolve a mechanism that can change it's surroundings to meet it's needs, instead of the other way around. So instead of the life form adapting to it's surrounding, it developes an ability to make it's surrounding change to serve it.
I've never heard the term "de-evolve."
To have a mutation that henders more than helps. In other words it is a degression as far as evolution is concerned.
6.) We've just been talking about the "were you there" objection. Firstly, I said that we can learn about the past from clues -- by studying and comparing them. Secondly, I said that evolution has actually been observed, and I reminded you of Russ2's post about bacteria evolving from beneficial mutations.
1) The Bible is the only known record of anything way back when. The rest is our unterpretation based on end game evidence about processes we cannot observe or condirm to happen.
2) A mutation is a small change. The bacteria life form still stays a bacteria life form. Which stays with in the laws if kind creation.
