Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[jonesthecurl]

That's what they cook at a tailgator.

[Neoteny]

Click image to enlarge.

Big enough?

[Frigidus]

Click image to enlarge.

Big enough?

I believe that should do it.

[a.sub]

I made all of these

[AAFitz]

I really hope this discussion can continue in good order with all participating keeping a clear mind (myself included) and really think about why we all feel the way we do and analyze the data and conclusions for ourselves and not just say what others have told us.

I think this is the most important part of your post. When reviewing the assumptions, and evidence offered, it is helpful to look at motivation. In the case of many, not all scientists, the goal is to try to find out what really happened. Any true scientist would let the facts lead them where they led, and not try to aim for any particular place. They may very well have a hypothesis to begin with, but that does not mean they are trying to prove it right.

Scientists have no reason to suggest the world is a 10,000 years old, 1,000,000 years old, or 100,000,000. There is no benefit for any specific number here, the only benefit can be to actually get it as close as possible. In fact, it is perhaps the goal of many scientists to prove other scientists wrong, so they are not necessarily using their data as fact. They are in fact questioning the validity of it all the time. This is not to say that all scientists can be trusted, only that some can be reasonably trusted. The same can be said of any group.

However, when looking at the creationist science, we can immediately see, they are trying to prove something. They have a firm hypothesis, and are essentially trying to prove it correct. They are trying to use the information at hand, to make it fit the account of the Bible, and essentially give it a plausible explanation. Many of the assumptions made while studying this evidence, is that the Bible is correct. The problem is, there is absolutely no proof, or even reason to believe the bible is correct, other than the fact that it is extremely old, and many people hold the same belief. However, that is not proof, since there are many religions and books that are older, with plenty of people that believe them fully. In fact, it is the fact that other such complex beliefs, and religions exist, that make the Bible a far less reliable source for consideration.

So, one must ignore the Bible, when approaching the study of the earth, and simply look at it with a clear mind like you suggested. Now, when the first studies of the earth were made, and people began to question the age of the planet, there could have been no real way to guess what age they came up with. While creationists are essentially trying to prove that what we find on the planet could all have possibly happened in 6000-10000 years, the first true scientists in the area, could realistically have no idea what numbers they would come up with. As they studied, they came up with millions of years, and have plenty of evidence that supports that. Further, they have no reason to adjust their numbers, because they really are only trying to find out how everything came to be.

So for me considering the motivations of the two groups, and the motivations of them, I think it is easy to give more weight to the scientists that realistically had no real reason to aim for any particular answer. They were not trying to prove it was millions of years old, they found evidence that it was millions of years old, and ill guess were amazed themselves.

Further, I supect any true scientist that was asked to look at all the geologic, ecologic, fossil data, not ever having known about the theory that the earth was created 10000 years ago or less, then they would invariably deduce that it was older than that.

Seeing the sheer volume of dinosaur fossils, plant fossil, and extreme number of animals that have become extinct, and even trying to rationally even imagine the possibility that they could have existed, lived, and died in such a small amount of time stretches the imagination to the point of impossibility. I agree that it is fully possible for an all powerful God, to create this, but that does not mean it is reasonable in any way that he did. The only evidence that it was created comes from the bible, which as mentioned before, since there are other versions of the story, cannot be included in the study.

So, these are the main reasons why I trust the assumptions of scientists more than creation scientists. The motivations of the creations scientists are completely suspect, because it is clear they are trying to use only the information that supports their theory, and not the evidence that may not support it. Surely some scientists do this too, but the difference is, the true scientists goals are to often prove other scientists wrong, so it is much easier to trust that if they find conflicting evidence, that they will quickly present it.

And again, I have an excellent imagination. I know that we have a rough knowledge of the history of man for thousands of years. I see how little the planet has changed in that time. I see how little the plant and animal life has changed in that time, and I can do this using the bible itself, since it is safe to assume, that even if the God on which it is based is false, that it would not have been believed, if it did not fit the description of the world.

What I cannot possibly even imagine in any believability, was that inside of 10,000 years, most of which we have an actual history of man, and an accurate history of the earth, that in the few thousand years before this recorded history everything moved at an accelerated rate that defies all logic and reason. To believe the bible that the earth was created in one day, plants the next, sunlight the next, and then man, leaves the only possibility for the dinosaurs existence to be while man existed on the planet. Also, given the short amount of time, they would have all had to have essentially lived at the same time, and it simply creates a world that is absolutely nothing like we see today, or in any description of the bible. It suggests a world that was either created to look as though it aged millions of years, or actually did age for millions of years.

For me, it is amazing that it is even possible for someone to believe, that it is more reasonable that God created the world the dinosaurs, man and plants all at the same time, and then killed of everything, aged the planet, then the fact that God, while he created the planet, and man, created the building blocks of the world, and let it evolve and age into what we have today. Further, the only evidence we have to suggest this did not happen, is one book, from one source, that contradicts many other books, and many other beliefs.

For this reason, when looking at all the information, I find it impossible to believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old, because any real unbiased evidence, including my own rational reasoning, suggests it is simply impossible. I cant argue that it is possible for any God to not have created this, but I cant argue that it isnt possible for God to create anything and any possibility, but that does not mean it becomes more believable.

Believing in God, or not believing in God, is personal choice, and personally I feel its wrong for anyone to try to convince another for or against this belief, since there is no proof whatsoever of his existence, or absence. But assuming the existence of God, I feel its infinitely more probable, plausible, and reasonable that he created the earth a very long time ago, and that the earth evolved for millions of years to get where it is today. I believe that when the story of the creation of the world was written, it was made up, in the same way Greek mythology, Egyptian gods, Native American thunder gods, and all of the other examples we have of religions and supernatural beliefs came from. There certainly is no tangible evidence that the Bible's story is any more real than the many other versions. The only evidence is really that people believe it to be true. However, using a belief as evidence can make anything true, so for one to really make a decision, they must use their intellect, and reason, and look at the evidence as impartially, and as open minded as possible.

So, while it is easy to present the creationist theory of the world, and suggest it is possible, and even probable. It can not as reasonably explain the countless number of contradictions that exist with its theories. It is clearly a theory that tries very hard to create a world that simply makes the Bible's stories possible, but certainly does not make them any more plausible than the theories that encompass much more evidence, and with much less bias.

This will of course not change anyone's mind, or make them even question their beliefs. Man has a very strong ability to believe in whatever he wants. Many cultures from all over the globe have believed in many different supernatural powers, with every bit of their existence. They gave their lives, and often took lives in support of these beliefs. There are countless numbers of religions today, with billions of believers that believe to their very core that what they believe is correct, and there is nothing that will ever change those beliefs. Many will never once question them substantially as long as they live. It is very possible that their lives will be better because of it. It is also possible that they will not. Knowing the capacity of humans to believe in supernatural forces, gods and God, knowing their capability to create stories, and the unlimited imagination they have to created stories, it is easier for me to believe that there probably was no supernatural force at all. I can accept that there could be a God, mind you, but it is certainly impossible to believe that any one religion is actually the right one, and that the God of pure Good, and incapable of all evil, would even allow a system so confusing, and so impossible to find truth in. For the only way for one to find the correct religion if there is one, is to listen to your parents, which means, those who worship the correct God, and are following the correct path are more lucky than anything, which makes the kingdom of heaven, or the afterlife, which is present in most religions more of a lottery, than an reward for the faithful.

I myself have believed in God, and never questioned it. Ive had plenty of education, was an altar boy, went to church, and even went to a catholic High School, and as much as part of me wants to believe the stories are true, and even do still do believe at times, there is a rational part of my brain, that has looked at all the evidence and has simply found too many inconsistencies to one: believe in any one religion, and two: truly believe in the absolute existence of God. I have simply seen too many examples of humans and entire society creating such alternate realities, to believe any one of them is actually true. Most importantly, I do not believe the God that I did believe in, the one true God, the God of all that is Good, and who completely was devoid of any evil of any kind, would ever actually wish or create the religions that exist today in the world.

The only wish a God of Good would have, would be that his children of his creation, would help its other children. He would require no thanks, no praise, no sacrifice, and no effort in his benefit in any small or large way, because being purely Good, could simply not enjoy it, or even wish it, since only a being with pride, or ego would actually be affected by it. His only need would for people to help other people, and create something as beautiful as possible out of the world He gave us, and would reward each person based on this criteria alone. It is the only logical way to view a God that is Good. It is possible to believe in a God that does require thanks or praise, but it is not possible to consider them pure Good, because the two are mutually exclusive. So, for those that do believe, I do suggest you consider this little idea, that i have formed, after many years of contemplation, and simply view the logical aspects of it.

By all means believe in God, and do all you can to make him proud, but dont waste your time on this earth trying to convince others that you are correct, or that others are wrong, or essentially wasting flattery on a God that simply cant value it...but do the only thing a True God of Good would ever want, which is help his other children selflessly, and completely. Any God that does not reward that, is not a God of pure Good at all. The only problem with this, is if there is a God, and he is not a good God, and is capable of sin, and actually does enjoy the praise and thanks, and will only reward those who give it, and will punish all of those who do not. It would also mean that there is a very small group of people on this earth that will ever get to see Him, and the rest will either never know, or possibly even be punished for it, as most religions seem to suggest.

Again, it is these many contradictions, which are on a logical and basic level, that almost cannot be argued, that I find it impossible to believe in any religion, and therefore the bible, or any scientist that claims the world is 10000 years or younger, which is clearly in an effort to simply support that bible, and not find the actual truth.

[Backglass]

Again, it is these many contradictions, which are on a logical and basic level, that almost cannot be argued, that I find it impossible to believe in any religion, and therefore the bible, or any scientist that claims the world is 10000 years or younger, which is clearly in an effort to simply support that bible, and not find the actual truth.

Very well said AAFitz. I, like you, saw the same contradictions and the many holes. However unlike you, I was not raised as an alter boy, attended religious school, or had highly religious parents. I was not burdened by the decades of indoctrination as you were, and therefor I came to the same conclusions you did but I took it one step further and believe the entire concept of invisible, magical gods to be false. I am sure this step would be MUCH harder to take for those raised in such a religious way.

I actually believe that the majority of those that call themselves religious feel like you do. Deep inside they believe the logic, but practice the religion anyway out of habit, training, comfort, family and of course to "hedge their bet" just in case.

[Artimis]

I actually believe that the majority of those that call themselves religious feel like you do. Deep inside they believe the logic, but practice the religion anyway out of habit, training, comfort, family and of course to "hedge their bet" just in case.

With the possibility that the Big Bang was not a one off fluke, but one in a series of big bangs followed by big collapses. As described in The Big Bounce(this was brought up in another thread). It would be reasonable to assume that life might also have evolved in the previous universe to this recent one. Given that the current universe is estimated to be only 16 billion years and still expanding. Also that the Solar system only formed an estimated 4.6 billion years ago, during which the third planet out from the Sun managed to foster life in the 1 billion years after formation. That planet now has a species that is 'self-aware' and has the capability for escaping the confines of their host environment(said third planet from the Sun).

Assuming that such a life form could successfully leave it's planet of origin and propagate elsewhere before the star at the heart of the host system burned out. Surely given the time scale involved with the expansion and collapse of the universe, they would be able to devise a method to escape the certain doom of remaining within the confines of the universe, as it approached the starting density prior to it's past expansion. Or at least devise a method of survival if they could not cross the horizon of the universe to whatever lies outside the boundary of known existence. Such beings would truly be invisible to our sight and quite beyond our limited comprehension.

So far that makes some kind of sense still, so I'm going to stop here for a bit and pause for 'mental' breath for a bit.

[PLAYER57832]

From the Lancaster Creation Science Institute website:

(link to full article: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=55)

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

[emphasis atributes, enlarge and bold, added]

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

[jonesthecurl]

The damning thing for the creationists is simply the phrase "Creationists already have the Truth". That means it's not Science, "Creation Science" or otherwise. Scientists look to see if there is any evidence to alter their current hypotheses. Creationists look to find evidence of what they already "know".

[Japs]

There are two different views on how the world began, the creationist and the evolutionist.The creationist believe in God and have faith in the Bible. The Bible says God created Heaven and Earth. The current evolutionist belive in their knowledge of the Darwin theory, that all things came from a single cell and the Earth evolved from space dust.

Creationists and evolutionists have different views of how the world began.
Creationists believe God created the world and all living things.
Evolutionists believe the Earth was created by space dust.They also believed
that humans evolved from single celled living organisms.These belifes are based
on a book that Charles Darwin wrote.

Creationists believe God created everything in existence. There have been no
findings so far that gives evidence that we evolved from something else.
Creationists base their beliefs off the Bible. There are three main points
all creationists follow. First, all animals have similar organs because God
created all things in his liking. Second, changes in a specie happen but not in two
different species.Forexample, two different dog breeds can create a new dog breed but atwo dogs cant create a cat.Third fossils have never been found that shows evolution in one type of animal.

Evolutionist believe the Earth was created from space dust and humans evolved
from single celled organisms. They believe a dog can have a cat or a plant.
They believe that they will one day find a link between apes and humans.
They also believe there was no great flood that covered the Earth. They
believe animals mutated from other animals. All the fossil findings found that were
belived to be cave men where just normal people.

All ancient civilizations say there was a great flood.The Bible says there
was a great flood and only Noah and his family survived.They built an ark and
took a male and female of every animal.The flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights.
Evidence of the the flood proves creationist are right because the bible talks about the flood. The flood could be the reason all the dinisours died.

There is no scientific fact that proves either side right or wrong. They both claim to have found evidence that proves they are right. Then the other side finds ten reasons that they're wrong.The creationist beleive in God and the Bible and evolutionist belive in the Darwin theory. In the end it all comes down to faith on what side you want to believe.


That is an essay one of my younger brothers wrote on the topic.
I however would like to add on a final note that Darwin said that his theory was false before he died.

[MeDeFe]

There are two different views on how the world began, the creationist and the evolutionist.The creationist believe in God and have faith in the Bible. The Bible says God created Heaven and Earth. The current evolutionist belive in their knowledge of the Darwin theory, that all things came from a single cell and the Earth evolved from space dust.

Creationists and evolutionists have different views of how the world began.
Creationists believe God created the world and all living things.
Evolutionists believe the Earth was created by space dust.They also believed
that humans evolved from single celled living organisms.These belifes are based
on a book that Charles Darwin wrote.

Creationists believe God created everything in existence. There have been no
findings so far that gives evidence that we evolved from something else.
Creationists base their beliefs off the Bible. There are three main points
all creationists follow. First, all animals have similar organs because God
created all things in his liking. Second, changes in a specie happen but not in two
different species.Forexample, two different dog breeds can create a new dog breed but atwo dogs cant create a cat.Third fossils have never been found that shows evolution in one type of animal.

Evolutionist believe the Earth was created from space dust and humans evolved
from single celled organisms. They believe a dog can have a cat or a plant.
They believe that they will one day find a link between apes and humans.
They also believe there was no great flood that covered the Earth. They
believe animals mutated from other animals. All the fossil findings found that were
belived to be cave men where just normal people.

All ancient civilizations say there was a great flood.The Bible says there
was a great flood and only Noah and his family survived.They built an ark and
took a male and female of every animal.The flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights.
Evidence of the the flood proves creationist are right because the bible talks about the flood. The flood could be the reason all the dinisours died.

There is no scientific fact that proves either side right or wrong. They both claim to have found evidence that proves they are right. Then the other side finds ten reasons that they're wrong.The creationist beleive in God and the Bible and evolutionist belive in the Darwin theory. In the end it all comes down to faith on what side you want to believe.


That is an essay one of my younger brothers wrote on the topic.
I however would like to add on a final note that Darwin said that his theory was false before he died.

Attatroll!

[jonesthecurl]

I sure hope so, else it's "I read the title of the thread. It's 140 pages long? Never mind, let's just post."

[PLAYER57832]

There are two different views on how the world began, the creationist and the evolutionist.The creationist believe in God and have faith in the Bible. The Bible says God created Heaven and Earth. The current evolutionist belive in their knowledge of the Darwin theory, that all things came from a single cell and the Earth evolved from space dust.

Evolution has come a LONG way since Darwin. He gave the "kick start", but scientific theories never stay put. They change as we learn more.

Creationists and evolutionists have different views of how the world began.
Creationists believe God created the world and all living things.
Evolutionists believe the Earth was created by space dust.They also believed
that humans evolved from single celled living organisms.These belifes are based
on a book that Charles Darwin wrote.

Creationists believe God created everything in existence. There have been no
findings so far that gives evidence that we evolved from something else.

Not true, at all.

Creationists base their beliefs off the Bible. There are three main points
all creationists follow. First, all animals have similar organs because God
created all things in his liking. Second, changes in a specie happen but not in two
different species.Forexample, two different dog breeds can create a new dog breed but atwo dogs cant create a cat.

None of these facts dispute Evolution in any way. You can put whatever cause you wish... Evolution does not deal with cause, which is why Christians can accept Evolution. God did it .. just used Evolution.

Third fossils have never been found that shows evolution in one type of animal.

Plain false. Check out the USGS website, or Cal Berkeley ... just to name a few. They have pictures of many transition fossils.

Why would a Christian adult put forward such a lie to a child?

Evolutionist believe the Earth was created from space dust and humans evolved
from single celled organisms. They believe a dog can have a cat or a plant.

No, they don't.

They believe that they will one day find a link between apes and humans.

Wrong, genetics and fossils show there is a link.

They also believe there was no great flood that covered the Earth.

Not part of Evolution theory at all. Some Christians who accept evolution firmly believe in a worldwide flood, some do not. In either case it is not part of Evolution theory.

They believe animals mutated from other animals.

True

All the fossil findings found that were belived to be cave men where just normal people.

Not biologically possible.

All ancient civilizations say there was a great flood.The Bible says there
was a great flood and only Noah and his family survived.They built an ark and
took a male and female of every animal.The flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights.

Again, not part of Evolution.

Evidence of the the flood proves creationist are right because the bible talks about the flood.

Bible is not accepted as evidence except by Christians. Only a few Christians believe the Bible means that the Earth is 6000 years old. Far fewer believe it had anything to do with the dinosaurs.

The flood could be the reason all the dinisours died.

Only if just about every scientist (thousands in each field) studying Geology, physics, hydrology, paleontology, biology, etc, etc. etc are lying or plain wrong.

There is no scientific fact that proves either side right or wrong.

Not true.

They both claim to have found evidence that proves they are right

. True.

Then the other side finds ten reasons that they're wrong.

No.

Creationists simply say the Bible proves them correct and claim any evidence not consistant with that idea does not exist, or is wrong no matter how many credible scientists test and verify the conclusions.

Scientists start by saying they don't know, come up with all kinds of theories and then try to prove them wrong. The idea that the Earth is 6000 years old has been proven false.

The creationist beleive in God and the Bible and evolutionist belive in the Darwin theory. In the end it all comes down to faith on what side you want to believe.

That is an essay one of my younger brothers wrote on the topic.
I however would like to add on a final note that Darwin said that his theory was false before he died.

Darwin published beginnings of theories that have since been greatly expanded. Some ideas .. that natural selection alone could account for all the genetic diversity, for examplem, that evolution was a slow, gradual process for another ... have LONG been known to be incorrect. That you don't know this shows how little you actually know of real Evolutionary Theory. Darwin is celebrated because while he got some details incorrect, what he came up with was phenomenal for the time and created an entirely new way of thinking about the world in science.

[Japs]

hey i just thought it might help... it was my brothers report one year

[Neoteny]

I can haz essay formatting plz?

Also:

I however would like to add on a final note that Darwin said that his theory was false before he died.

Lies and trickery!

[Frigidus]

I can haz essay formatting plz?

Also:

I however would like to add on a final note that Darwin said that his theory was false before he died.

Lies and trickery!

I think that quote shows just how objective the "essay" was.

[deceangli]

Is this one still running? I've changed my mind about it all. I think the Creationists are right, the Earth was created 6,000 years ago - at the same time as this thread. The dinosaurs just died of boredom after reading the first 1,000 entries.

[jonesthecurl]

You're right. I convert too.
There, no need to argue anymore.

[Gillipig]

First off I would like to say that I enjoy discussing this topic. I am not ashamed to say I believe in God (from the Bible). I believe the earth is a young earth 6,000- 10,000 years old. These beliefs are based on explanations of the physical world and its workings that I believe are more believable than those based on evolution.

Yeah sure try to fit the dinosaurs into a period of 10,000 years from now I would like to see any serious person explain that! Somethings aren't about belief, science is not about belief. And if you try to make it into that, you try so hard that it doesn't make any sense!
The earth is 4,5 billion years old! Thats not a belief it's a fact proven by huge numbers of scientific measurements, and you choose to ignore that and believe in what was written 2 000 years ago in a much more primitive society, which backs up it's reason with no proven data what so ever. I mean come on I believed in santa claus when I was young too, and humans generally believe in things because it's in our dna to do it, why? Because we didn't have the luxuary to know things 100 000 years ago when our current fysiology sprung up! God didn't create humans, Humans created god! And we have the ability to choose reason infront of believe. I never try to push my life stance onto others. (Unless someone opens a Thread about it . What bothers me the most is that people use religion to try to penetrate others with their belief, different religions knocking doors, presidents use god in their speaches. Instead of giving everyone gods blessing, (how would a president have the power to bless people anyway) they could give people the blessing of making up their own mind instead! "May you believe in whatever you want to but please keep it to your self" would be a better sentence to use! I'm a mix of a lot of life stances, (I pick what I like from them, and create my own life stance) But mostly I'm an Existentialist, I belive in the capacity of single individuals rather then big groups, my focus in life is around myself, If I want to help people I don't think about what everyone in general can do to help people. I think of what I can do, and I couldn't care less if my way of helping them is a odd way that would be impossible to apply for everyone on the planet.
I follow my own rules of good conduct! Most of all I use sense to evaluate a situation, the likability that my gut feeling is wrong, is much higher than my logic being wrong. I was born without restraints and I plan on living the life I want while I'm alive, so an afterlife wouldn't be needed nor appreciated by me. Live life, live it while your alive, it's all up to you what you do in life! Use that power to maximum extent, and your life will be worth living!

MVH Gillipig

[Neoteny]

[MeDeFe]

Did anyone see this already? Acquired traits may also be inherited to the next generation, or even generations.

The idea that qualities acquired from experience can be transmitted to future offspring has long been considered incompatible with current understanding of genetics. However, the recent documentation of non-Mendelian transgenerational inheritance makes such a "Lamarckian"-like phenomenon more plausible. Here, we demonstrate that exposure of 15-d-old mice to 2 weeks of an enriched environment (EE), that includes exposure to novel objects, elevated social interactions and voluntary exercise, enhances long-term potentiation (LTP) not only in these enriched mice but also in their future offspring through early adolescence, even if the offspring never experience EE. In both generations, LTP induction is augmented by a newly appearing cAMP/p38 MAP kinase-dependent signaling cascade. Strikingly, defective LTP and contextual fear conditioning memory normally associated with ras-grf knock-out mice are both masked in the offspring of enriched mutant parents. The transgenerational transmission of this effect occurs from the enriched mother to her offspring during embryogenesis. If a similar phenomenon occurs in humans, the effectiveness of one's memory during adolescence, particularly in those with defective cell signaling mechanisms that control memory, can be influenced by environmental stimulation experienced by one's mother during her youth.

[AAFitz]

Ive always suspected that our lives and environment adjust our dna, even if its slightly, which affects reproduction.

It seems the only logical reason why change would occur to suit a particular environment. Certainly, its safe to assume a health person would be producing healthier reproductive cells, as all other cells would be healthier...perhaps more so in a man than a female, since her eggs were created already. But a healthy male probably produces healthier cells. That would increase the chance of a healthy one reaching the egg.

Im making this up, but it just make sense to me. But it does seem likely, that since dna is so massive, that we are able to make a few changes to it even if minute, along the way, and that those changes accumulate over time.

years ago when our current fysiology

seriously? i mean I understand the passion, but my god man(no pun intended).. you cant use the word science, and then spell physiology with an "f"... you just cant...lol

also, the passages that widow makers believe suggest the earth is 6000-10000 years old, are far older than 2000 years, but we get the idea

[Artimis]

Did anyone see this already? Acquired traits may also be inherited to the next generation, or even generations.

It was featured in New Scientist(7th February 2009, Page 12) as well, under the title of 'Can experiences before conception be passed on?' I think it's worth stressing that this is preliminary findings so far, more investigation and testing is required. If this holds true then the implications are massive, your intelligence could be influenced by your mothers activities.

[AAFitz]

Did anyone see this already? Acquired traits may also be inherited to the next generation, or even generations.

It was featured in New Scientist(7th February 2009, Page 12) as well, under the title of 'Can experiences before conception be passed on?' I think it's worth stressing that this is preliminary findings so far, more investigation and testing is required. If this holds true then the implications are massive, your intelligence could be influenced by your mothers activities.

Actually, i believe that has sadly been tested already. Certainly destructive behaviors like drugs, and illness have clearly shown negative results. I dont think its a stretch to assume positive behaviors would achieve positive ones. The challenge of course will be finding out which ones are beneficial, which as you say, will take years and years of testing.

[Gillipig]

also, the passages that widow makers believe suggest the earth is 6000-10000 years old, are far older than 2000 years, but we get the idea

If this is a quote to my post. then read it more closely. I wrote 10,000 years from now.
And in Swedish physiology is spelled in the exact same way except the ph in the beginning is an "f" so that's why I typed it wrong actually! Not because it sounds like an f!

MVH Gillipig