Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Gabethewiking]

There is no need, I doubt you will show me anything I don't already know... although I've never heard of the 1 to 10 step; is that a standard expression I just never ran into, or is it some evo thing?

It is a expression I use, but it may be used amongst others as well, I claim Royalties nonetheless :yes:

If you do know and understand Evolution, as you say, why do you continue to express the "CrocoDuck" style opinions? I mean, I am a bad writer and horrible at formulating myself, but you have not shown any sign of having problems expressing yourself and everything you do express, is in the Warning Red Zone of Mr CrocoDuck.....


Just to take all at once, Evolution is a Fact, you seem to accept that but deny "Macro" Evolution, which does not exist. Evolution is Evolution, that is all, so what is the problem, what is it you do not understand? I usually use Graphs, but I try it with text, and please TAKE YOUR TIME on this post, I hate these short two second responses when you given a explantion to something, I am in a hurry so I am doing this quick for You baby, okay

1-------X---------------XY--------------------XYU------------------------XYUT------------XYUT-100

Okej, see the one (1) to hundred (100), this is an example of Evolution, a snap in some animals Evolution, say Homo sapien sapien.

First you have X, and then it continues, always continues, never stopping, always changing, and we end at XY, Here we define it a "new species", we may do this for various reason, we avoid that issue at this time, it then continues, never stopped, to XYU, another "new species" we decided, and then XYUT and we decided that it is a "new species" here as well, and so on.

Are you with me so far? This is not a animal, these are societies of animals, a group of animals constantly changing, when you are born, you are a change to your previous group, but you are still the same, same enough to be defined as Homo sapien sapien, but if you look a million years into the future, this line would, somewhere, have been defined as something else, something not the same as earlier, This is what you call "macro" evolution, this is just a word used to define the accumulation of changes so great we define it as something else, an arbitrary judging system we humans have made up.

Do you understand?

 

[gnostic]

I don't deny micro-evolution, only macro-evolution as in mixing within different kinds. Darwin obviously figured out variation within populations, but he took his model too far.

The principle for the macro-evolution is the same as the micro-evolution. The only difference is that the macro-evolution required more tens, hundreds of thousands or million of years to see more marked changes in species, where as micro-evolution have shorter time frame.

Darwin is not wrong.

Ok, you don't believe in human (macro-) evolution, so then looked at other animal species.

Take the horses for example.

The domestic horses (Equus ferus caballus) were actually derived from the wild horses (Equus ferus), hence domestic horses are subspecies of wild horse, but both belonged to Equus genus and subgenus, and to the Equidae family. There are many other species in the Equus itself and in other genus, but also bearing vague resemblance to our horses, but noticeably different in their bone structures.


------------------------------------------------

Equidae (family)

|
​

Equinae (subfamily)

|
​

Equini (tribe)

|
​

Equus (genus)

|
​

Equus (subgenus)

|
​

Equus ferus (species)

|
​

Equus ferus caballus (subspecies)

​

------------------------------------------------

There are vast numbers of evidences of extinct related equines from the Miocene (23 million years ago) and Eocene (55 million years ago) epochs. However none of the horses (wild or domestic) have fossils in either of these epochs.

Where did our Equus ferus (and Equus caballus) come from, if not from one of these other species?

The horses couldn't have just originated from nowhere. Darwin's theory provided the best explanation to the evolution of any animal, including humans. Scientists have yet to refute his theory, whether it be macro-evolution or micro-evolution.

God did it, is not explanation at all. And the ID explanation is just as bad. In order to prove either creationism or ID, they have to provide testable evidences that support their faith that either God or this so-called Intelligent Designer are responsible for the creation of species. They failed to explain all the extinct species that have been found prior to our epoch or period.

 

[RedOne77]

It is a expression I use, but it may be used amongst others as well, I claim Royalties nonetheless :yes:

<Chuckle>, I see.

If you do know and understand Evolution, as you say, why do you continue to express the "CrocoDuck" style opinions? I mean, I am a bad writer and horrible at formulating myself, but you have not shown any sign of having problems expressing yourself and everything you do express, is in the Warning Red Zone of Mr CrocoDuck.....

..... Well I am only aware of one time where I expressed such a view (mixing kinds) and it was just a poorly worded sentence to get the idea across that I don't accept that one "kind" will evolve into another "kind".

Just to take all at once, Evolution is a Fact, you seem to accept that but deny "Macro" Evolution, which does not exist. Evolution is Evolution, that is all, so what is the problem, what is it you do not understand?

"Macro" does not exist! Well at least we agree on something :sarcastic

I'm sorry to say but "macro" does exist, it was invented by evolutionists, not creationists. However the meaning has changed from the scientific community to the debate down here. "Macro" in the scientific literature is essentially speciation (or evolution taxonomiclly higher as well), but that is not what it means in the evo-creo debate. Macro-evolution has taken on a new definition that is far more esoteric, alluding to the idea of "kinds" rather than species.

I usually use Graphs, but I try it with text, and please TAKE YOUR TIME on this post, I hate these short two second responses when you given a explantion to something, I am in a hurry so I am doing this quick for You baby, okay

1-------X---------------XY--------------------XYU------------------------XYUT------------XYUT-100

Okej, see the one (1) to hundred (100), this is an example of Evolution, a snap in some animals Evolution, say Homo sapien sapien.

First you have X, and then it continues, always continues, never stopping, always changing, and we end at XY, Here we define it a "new species", we may do this for various reason, we avoid that issue at this time, it then continues, never stopped, to XYU, another "new species" we decided, and then XYUT and we decided that it is a "new species" here as well, and so on.

What is the meaning behind increased letters in your analogy; Why start with "X" and then go "XY", why not just "Y"?

Are you with me so far? This is not a animal, these are societies of animals, a group of animals constantly changing, when you are born, you are a change to your previous group, but you are still the same, same enough to be defined as Homo sapien sapien, but if you look a million years into the future, this line would, somewhere, have been defined as something else, something not the same as earlier, This is what you call "macro" evolution, this is just a word used to define the accumulation of changes so great we define it as something else, an arbitrary judging system we humans have made up.

Do you understand?

I understand that evolution happens in populations, not individuals. I know you don't want two second responses, which I apologize is the case for this and the response above, but I just don't know what to say. I understand evolution and I know what you're saying, and so far not much of what you've posted conflicts with what I know.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm sorry to say but "macro" does exist, it was invented by evolutionists, not creationists. However the meaning has changed from the scientific community to the debate down here. "Macro" in the scientific literature is essentially speciation (or evolution taxonomiclly higher as well), but that is not what it means in the evo-creo debate. Macro-evolution has taken on a new definition that is far more esoteric, alluding to the idea of "kinds" rather than species.

1. New species have arisen in historical times. (Macro-evolution) For example:
   • A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
   • Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
     
     A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
   • Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
2. Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:
   • Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
   • The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
   • Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).
3. Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
   • the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
   • greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
   • the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
   • many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
   • the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
   • the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
   • In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
   • Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
   • A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
   
   There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).
5. Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)

Source

 

[Gunfingers]

"Macro" does not exist! Well at least we agree on something :sarcastic

I'm sorry to say but "macro" does exist, it was invented by evolutionists, not creationists. However the meaning has changed from the scientific community to the debate down here. "Macro" in the scientific literature is essentially speciation (or evolution taxonomiclly higher as well), but that is not what it means in the evo-creo debate. Macro-evolution has taken on a new definition that is far more esoteric, alluding to the idea of "kinds" rather than species.

According to one of the foundational falsehoods evolution has been observed at the genus level.

That said, the distinction at that level is pretty arbitrary. The only hard line is at the species level, with the line being whether organisms of a population can reproduce with another, and even that has some gray areas.

Which is exactly why trying to draw a line between micro and macro evolution is silly. There is NOTHING to limit how much genetic drift can take place, because there is no line. The only way to break up organisms that actually exists outside of our heads is by clade, which is a tracing of its evolutionary past and follows genetic, geological, and morphological evidence, and probably several others. The line between "genus" and "family" is an arbitrary point we made up, and in fact with the introduction of subfamilies and supergenuses and the like you can see how that old system is failing to hold true.

 

[fantome profane]

"Macro" in the scientific literature is essentially speciation (or evolution taxonomiclly higher as well), but that is not what it means in the evo-creo debate. Macro-evolution has taken on a new definition that is far more esoteric, alluding to the idea of "kinds" rather than species.

An “esoteric” definition is of no use in debates like these. What precisely do you mean by “macro-evolution”? What exactly do you mean by “kind”? You are going to continually asked these two questions until you answer them. And you can’t just say macro is a change in kind unless you have already defined kind. We see evidence of change all the time. If we did see a change in “kind” how would we recognise it?

So once again for emphasise.

What precisely do you mean by “macro-evolution”?

What exactly do you mean by “kind”?

 

[Gabethewiking]

What is the meaning behind increased letters in your analogy; Why start with "X" and then go "XY", why not just "Y"?

Second time I am writing this, I got a Database error....

The meaning of increased letters in my example is of Change. The Accumulation of change to be specific, which is what you need to understand to see how "macro" does not actually mean anything as a definition.



To repeat fantôme's request, Could you tell us what you mean with "macro" evolution and what a "kind" is?, so we can continue giving you examples.

 

[Autodidact]

An “esoteric” definition is of no use in debates like these. What precisely do you mean by “macro-evolution”? What exactly do you mean by “kind”? You are going to continually asked these two questions until you answer them. And you can’t just say macro is a change in kind unless you have already defined kind. We see evidence of change all the time. If we did see a change in “kind” how would we recognise it?

So once again for emphasise.

What precisely do you mean by “macro-evolution”?

What exactly do you mean by “kind”?

What fantome asked. Also, what is your hypothesis as to how we got such a variety of species on earth?

Do you agree or disagree that new species arise by descent with modification plus natural selection?

In short, exactly how much of modern science do you reject, and on what basis?

 

[johnhanks]

... I don't accept that one "kind" will evolve into another "kind".

Just to throw in another two-penn'orth: unless you tell us what you think a 'kind' is, your position has no foundation.

Let me ask you some specifics. Are beetles a kind? Would it be your view that evolution allows new beetle species to arise from existing ones, but would not, for example, allow for a common ancestor of beetles and bees?

 

[RedOne77]

What fantome asked. Also, what is your hypothesis as to how we got such a variety of species on earth?

Do you agree or disagree that new species arise by descent with modification plus natural selection?

In short, exactly how much of modern science do you reject, and on what basis?

My "hypothesis" is essentially evolution; decent with modification. What I disagree with is the extent to which such a theory is exercised.

Johnhanks: Let me ask you some specifics. Are beetles a kind? Would it be your view that evolution allows new beetle species to arise from existing ones, but would not, for example, allow for a common ancestor of beetles and bees

I don't know enough about beetles to say, but I have no problem with new species of beetles arising from pre-existing ones.

I define macro evolution to be speciation among "kinds" instead of among species. I don't like changing definitions of science, but I don't know of any other word to use to explain my position.

"Kind" is a little more tricky. And there is no good definition of kind that I'm aware of. This is an the end of my explanation of kind in another thread, in case someone hasn't come across it yet:
You can think of kind as a taxonomic rank, showing that each animal is descendant from their original ancestor, and all organisms from that ancestor belong to the same kind. Do I know exactly where each species falls? No, and as to date I don't think anyone does or ever has. I'm no taxonomist (big surprise, I know), but I see kind near the genus or family level, but I just don't know.

 

[RedOne77]

New species have arisen in historical times. (Macro-evolution) For example:...

I'm aware that speciation has been observed, and even on the genus level. I also know what incipient speciation is and what ring species are. I don't deny they exist, and yes I believe that many of these things and more are needed to show how relatively few organisms from the flood created the diversity we see today.

Gunfinger:
That said, the distinction at that level is pretty arbitrary. The only hard line is at the species level, with the line being whether organisms of a population can reproduce with another, and even that has some gray areas.

Very true, ring species is a prime example of such gray areas.

Which is exactly why trying to draw a line between micro and macro evolution is silly. There is NOTHING to limit how much genetic drift can take place, because there is no line. The only way to break up organisms that actually exists outside of our heads is by clade, which is a tracing of its evolutionary past and follows genetic, geological, and morphological evidence, and probably several others. The line between "genus" and "family" is an arbitrary point we made up, and in fact with the introduction of subfamilies and supergenuses and the like you can see how that old system is failing to hold true

I'm aware of the arbitrariness of taxonomy, and this is why I think that putting each organism under a "kind" is very hard, if not impossible. What creationists are trying to do with the term "kind" is taking an intrinsic property of creation and trying to understand it through a man-made model. This is why I'm so hesitant to comment on what kind exactly is and what groups of species are in what kind. Since we simply don't know, or can never know, I may very well be wrong on many of the things I talk about regarding the subject. The understanding of kinds is for the most part a man-made effort, and to ascribe an infallibility to the subject (later to disprove creationism) is a straw-man.

 

[Autodidact]

My "hypothesis" is essentially evolution; decent with modification. What I disagree with is the extent to which such a theory is exercised.

How does your hypothesis differ from ToE?

I don't know enough about beetles to say, but I have no problem with new species of beetles arising from pre-existing ones.

How many "kinds" of beetles are there?

I define macro evolution to be speciation among "kinds" instead of among species. I don't like changing definitions of science, but I don't know of any other word to use to explain my position.

But of course, if you can't define "kind," then you haven't defined macro-evolution, have you?

"Kind" is a little more tricky. And there is no good definition of kind that I'm aware of. This is an the end of my explanation of kind in another thread, in case someone hasn't come across it yet:
You can think of kind as a taxonomic rank, showing that each animal is descendant from their original ancestor, and all organisms from that ancestor belong to the same kind. Do I know exactly where each species falls? No, and as to date I don't think anyone does or ever has. I'm no taxonomist (big surprise, I know), but I see kind near the genus or family level, but I just don't know.

Your definition is circular. Do you see why, or do I need to explain it?

How can we tell whether two organisms are the same or different "kind?"

 

[Autodidact]

Since we simply don't know, or can never know, I may very well be wrong on many of the things I talk about regarding the subject. The understanding of kinds is for the most part a man-made effort, and to ascribe an infallibility to the subject (later to disprove creationism) is a straw-man.

And the fact that they have utterly failed to do so reveals the flaw in their hypothesis--it doesn't work.

 

[RedOne77]

How does your hypothesis differ from ToE?
How many "kinds" of beetles are there?

In many ways it is the same as ToE: variation in populations, mutations, natural selection, decent w/modification. Where it differs is how far it can go; ToE claims that everything goes back to a single common ancestor (despite that common ancestor came from multiple 'lines' so to say), while mine cuts it off at the 'kind' idea.

But of course, if you can't define "kind," then you haven't defined macro-evolution, have you?

I see what you are saying. But you don't need one to define the other. I'll agree that without the definition of kind macro evolution is obscure, but so is a species (albeit it is much more concrete). So even the definition of macro evolution among the scientific literature is not complete, or would you say that "species" is not defined and thus speciation cannot be defined?

Your definition is circular. Do you see why, or do I need to explain it?

How can we tell whether two organisms are the same or different "kind?"

It is circular, but in the same sense speciation and species is circular (yet again I'll concede that they are more concrete). The problem is that species and speciation have a much more pragmatic, and thus more empirical, way of defining what they are and how they are used in nature. While kind is something that humans are trying to arbitrarily place species into something that is real, but at the same time inconsequential to nature today. As far as I know we can't empirically tell if two species are in the same "kind" or not, you'll have to ask a professional creation researcher if you want a real answer.

 

[Autodidact]

In many ways it is the same as ToE: variation in populations, mutations, natural selection, decent w/modification. Where it differs is how far it can go; ToE claims that everything goes back to a single common ancestor (despite that common ancestor came from multiple 'lines' so to say), while mine cuts it off at the 'kind' idea.

So your hypothesis differs from ToE in a way you can't define? Is that right?

I see what you are saying. But you don't need one to define the other. I'll agree that without the definition of kind macro evolution is obscure, but so is a species (albeit it is much more concrete). So even the definition of macro evolution among the scientific literature is not complete, or would you say that "species" is not defined and thus speciation cannot be defined?

1. No. 2. The fact that species are somewhat vague is one of the many successful predictions of ToE. It is consistent with the theory.

So the core of your argument is (1) undefined (2) circular? I would call that a FAIL. What would you call it?

It is circular, but in the same sense speciation and species is circular (yet again I'll concede that they are more concrete)

No, they're not.

The problem is that species and speciation have a much more pragmatic, and thus more empirical, way of defining what they are and how they are used in nature.

Yeah, that's what science is--empirical.

While kind is something that humans are trying to arbitrarily place species into something that is real, but at the same time inconsequential to nature today. As far as I know we can't empirically tell if two species are in the same "kind" or not, you'll have to ask a professional creation researcher if you want a real answer.

As I've already said, there is no such thing. So what you're saying is, you can't defend your argument?

So, basically, your argument goes like this?

1. ToE is incorrect in that it fails to account for kinds.
2. You have no idea what a kind is or how to recognize one.

Is that about right?

You differ from ToE in a way that you cannot not explain, define, or defend? That's your position?

 

[Autodidact]

So, as I was saying, your position would be, for example, that in the last 6000 years or so around 41 (or more) species of mouse have evolved from the original mouse kind?

 

[fantome profane]

I see what you are saying. But you don't need one to define the other. I'll agree that without the definition of kind macro evolution is obscure, but so is a species (albeit it is much more concrete). So even the definition of macro evolution among the scientific literature is not complete, or would you say that "species" is not defined and thus speciation cannot be defined?

But the theory of evolution predicts that “species” would be difficult to define. If we had a complete fossil or genetic record of say one specimen from each generation stretching from modern day humans back say 3 or 4 million years to the common ancestor between chimps and humans, at no point in that record would you see a distinct line of demarcation where you could define one species from another. It is only due to extinction and an incomplete record that we can draw any lines between species at all.

It is circular, but in the same sense speciation and species is circular (yet again I'll concede that they are more concrete). The problem is that species and speciation have a much more pragmatic, and thus more empirical, way of defining what they are and how they are used in nature. While kind is something that humans are trying to arbitrarily place species into something that is real, but at the same time inconsequential to nature today.

Your idea on the other hand would demand that there are clear lines of demarcation between one “kind” and another. Because you claim that there can be no crossing of the line your definition needs to be concrete. But because evolution predicts that there are no lines that cannot be crossed we expect to see difficulties in classification. Even though species is more concrete than kind it does not need to be. You do need to define kind if you intend to use the term to define macro-evolution. And you do need to define macro evolution if you intend to use it to define kind.

As far as I know we can't empirically tell if two species are in the same "kind" or not, you'll have to ask a professional creation researcher if you want a real answer.

Is there anyone in particular you would recommend we ask?

 

[RedOne77]

So your hypothesis differs from ToE in a way you can't define? Is that right?

That is a rather cynical way to look at it.

1. No. 2. The fact that species are somewhat vague is one of the many successful predictions of ToE. It is consistent with the theory.

I never said that it wasn't. I repeatedly said I accept speciation, doesn't that imply that I also accept that part of evolution too?

So the core of your argument is (1) undefined (2) circular? I would call that a FAIL. What would you call it?

An enigma for the ages.

You differ from ToE in a way that you cannot not explain, define, or defend? That's your position?

I'm not a professional so of course I can't defend it from every angle. But I haven't seen a shred of evidence on this forum that shows the validity of evolution the way evolutionists would have everyone believe.

Edit:

So, as I was saying, your position would be, for example, that in the last 6000 years or so around 41 (or more) species of mouse have evolved from the original mouse kind?

Yes.

 

[RedOne77]

Your idea on the other hand would demand that there are clear lines of demarcation between one “kind” and another. Because you claim that there can be no crossing of the line your definition needs to be concrete. But because evolution predicts that there are no lines that cannot be crossed we expect to see difficulties in classification. Even though species is more concrete than kind it does not need to be. You do need to define kind if you intend to use the term to define macro-evolution. And you do need to define macro evolution if you intend to use it to define kind.

I agree that this poses problems for creationists, it is not a perfect model of the universe, and I doubt it ever will be. But just because we cannot answer ever question, or point made, doesn't negate its validity. If such were the case evolution would have been discarded a long time ago, along with a myriad of other theories in science. Something doesn't have to be perfect for it to be true, or as true as you can get in this world.

Is there anyone in particular you would recommend we ask?

Unfortunately I haven't kept up on the latest creationist research, or scientists. So I don't have anyone in particular, most of my knowledge comes from forums like these and school.

 

[Dware]

Humans have always been arrogant and thought they had the universe figured out. Been like for thousands of years.

1 Corinthians 1:19-21
For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?" Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?" The man answered, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you will live!"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] (NLT, Luke 10:25-28)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Those versus are more important than any wisdom you will ever gain from debating how great man is.
[/FONT]
​