Thanks for that, Khanz. That's actually a brilliant theory, the best alternative to evolution I've ever seen. For clarification, though, what would these 'perfect' specimens have for characteristics? Today, the cats you described are pretty much perfectly suited to their environment, so under what conditions was this perfection aplicable? I er... don't expect you to have been around at the time, but I'm interested nonetheless.

As for organisms developing traits not in the gene pool, I can offer an arguement against that statement. On the other hand, Down's Syndrome is not inherited, not carried in the genome, and can occur with no history of the condition in the family's past. The simple counter arguement to that is that since it's not inherited, it can have no place in evolution.

However, evolution takes many centuries to be recognisable (except in small isolated instances, and on a microcosmic scale) - and humans have not been around to study genes for anywhere near long enough to see a trait occur out of the blue.

The microcosmic scale of which I speak refers to pockets of bacterial organisms. The case I have in mind is of so-called superbugs (the oh-so-informative media won't explain to me what they actually are, since it doesn't take devout religion to be stupid and demand things to be dumbed down). It is feared they will adapt faster to existing treatment if we use that treatment (as those that do survive the treatment will be the only ones left to reproduce). Now, as I said, I don't know the specifics of this, but according to your statement, the resistence for this is already carried in the genome of these 'bugs'. How is it meant to have come about?

Bah, I could probably continue arguing against my own arguements, but I fear that would just lead to a less clearly defined discussion.

ClaireBear, of course some private schools don't teach it. They're private schools. They're not funded by the government, so they can teach whatever they want (I went to one until the 5th grade). There are no states that ban Darwinism. Believe me. I live here, you don't.

Hmmmm... even private schools in Blighty have to function under guidance... I just find it very demoralising to think that there are certain peoples and areas so backward... still following dark ages values after all the advancements and scientific findings to the contrary.

Sorry Joe but I hope you're comfortable living under mine (and a lot of other British people's.. those I know anyway) red cross of "here lie-eth peoples of very little intelligence"

GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!
I just typed a very thoughtful answer to your question's Max but it disappeared somehow. You'll have to get the condensed version for now.

Perfect is not the right word. Super would probably be more appropriate. In creationism, God created the first super animals so that they could diversify and become many different species adapted to their environment. For example, we can look at Darwin's finches, who according to evolution all evolved from one simpler common ancestor. In creationism, all those finches descended from one super finch that allready carried the traits that are now the distinguishing features between the species. To me the second makes much more sense from a scientific standpoint... once you decide to believe in God of course.

As for evolution taking to long to be abserved. Assuming that is true, there is a lot of evidence that the Earth isn't as old as scientists would have us believe. I can't think of anything offhand other than the fact that carbon dating and such are shams and can only measure up to about 5,000 years. Yet scientists pretend they can accurately measure into the billions. Or something, I forget the real argument.

As for the viruses and such developing immunity to vaccines. I'd guess that it works the same way as our immune system does to battle new diseases. And since vaccines and medication all come from nature somehow, it is possible that the immunity of the disease is indeed an inherited trait. Not sure though, those are just my guesses.

I'm going to post this now before it disappears. I think it might be longer than the first one...


EDIT: Two seconds after hitting the post button my internet closed itslelf down for no reason. I feel lucky..

God did not create man.
Man created god.

Very deep Lucifer, if a bit vaque. However, I find it more likely that humans were created by some sort of ultimate ALL BEING than reality itself having been created by our limited physical minds. I think it makes more sense for everything to come from something than for everything to come from nothing.

Does the Bible say anything about how God isn't very active anymore? Because from what i've heard, in the "old days" he was very active - banishing this and destroying that. Popping up to tell someone to kill their son and then being all "Ha, you actually listened to me!" but then he just...disappears.

To be honest, compared to Christianity, Raelianism is quite believable. And i don't know why anybody laughs at it, because we've followed the whole "Eye in the sky" reason for life for, like, ever [or, atleast since people realised how stupid others were].

I prefer to believe in both God and evolution. If you put God ito a more likely role, such as being the very essence and balance of the universe rather than being a singular conscience, it makes way more sense to me. It's only partially right that we created God, because I think we just created an identity for god in our subjective world in trying to understand something so immense and beyond our concept of existance.

I swore to myself I would never argue about evolution again and I'm not about to start. Can everybody please stop infesting the boards with their bullshit, canned responses? Its tired and tiring so just cut that shit out.