Author Options:

what do you think of human evolution ? Answered

you may thing  this sounds weird or stupid but i think we can evolve 
like if your falling of a building if you concentrate and focuse on evolving like fly it will trigger and make you a mutant it just all a trick of the mind you control it doesn't control you.     


Neither creation or evolution can be proved scientifically. BOTH are theories. The only way to prove something scientifically is by observation. I know I wasn't around to observe how humans came into existence... how about you?

The thing that I think is sick is that schools are using text books that say evolution is a fact. IT IS NOT A FACT!!! IT IS ONLY A THEORY!!!!!

As has been said before me, mutations are generally harmful, so the odds of enough mutations actually coming together to create life is more astronomical then having a God would be... do some research.

Not really sure what you mean... My eyes see beauty on this earth, and my mind wonders how people can think everything just "evolved".

Your answer "thegeeke" is the most thoughtfull and truthfull in my opinion. I hope you get "best answer". There are only 2 possibilities. Evolution or creation. My choice is Creation. Sometimes I wonder why humans are said to be highly evolved and we dont have many advantages of "lower" animals. We dont have sharp claws, fangs, tough scales, tails (i could really use a tail), fast 4leg runner, large litters, short infancy, night vision, acute sense of smell, .... I could give many more similar examples. Instead, we have flat teeth (herbivore?), no defensive items, slow 2 leg runner, small litters of ONE, and long infancy. Science says we have a "highly evolved brain" but then they say we "only use 10 percent of it...!!!" Your advice to do some research is well said.

Actually, that 10% number is badly outdated. At the time we didn't know what the other 90% was doing. As neuroscience has developed, a lot of that has gotten filled in.

We don't know everything. But we do know pretty well what we do and don't know. And that's the true beginning of wisdom.

I was not stating that either side is correct... (although my personal belief is creation), however, the evidence you give about what we see is not observation about how the world began. I will admit that there is adaptation among species... however that is not evolution. I am not a scientist... (although I do know a little about computer science) however, I do know a few scientists, and one comes to mind as we have this discussion. I'm not sure what field he is trained in, however, he was not brought up to believe in creation, and was taught evolution in school (since that is the only thing they teach anymore). After a few years of seeing evidence that couldn't be explained by evolution, he started looking into creation... which he found could explain the evidence he was seeing.

Please realize that neither theory can scientifically explain how the world began. No matter which side you believe, you believe that either matter of some form, or a God has always been around. No matter how evolutionists explain how life began they always use some form of matter or chemical to explain it. Now either you believe that the matter or chemical just "popped" into existence or that it had no beginning. (Which either way... that is not scientific, and we have never OBSERVED life being created from nothing.) I would rather believe that there was a God that is intelligent who has no beginning or end, than believe that any matter could have no beginning or end.

As far as it goes for people bending it towards what they believe... yes... both sides do that... however when you look at the evidence from as much of a non-bias standpoint as you can... (I'm not saying look at it the way an evolutionist or creationist would show it to you... look at it from your own perspective with an open mind) you may find what you weren't expecting. This is what happened to me.

As far as a "malicious God", if you are going from a Biblical standpoint, you will see that it is WE who are malicious. The Bible says that "for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". The fossils can be explained by Noah's flood. According to the Bible man was so sinful that there was only one family that was still Godly. Because of that he wiped out all who were sinful. That is NOT being cruel if you believe in hell. Think about it, if there is only one family that is doing what is required to avoid hell, eventually the next generation, or the one after that will no longer be able to avoid hell. Therefore, God was giving future generations hope for survival by eliminating the harmful influences.

Also, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe that God sent His own Son to die on a cross for US. Humans. People who spit in His face every day by sinning. I can't even comprehend His love for me, to send His Son to die a horrible death to save me from hell. And you say he is a malicious God.

All in all, I don't think that either of us are going to change the others mind. But just think about it with an open mind... and I will do the same.

Your phrasing did imply which conclusion you expected folks to draw.

Mine stated it explicitly.

We agree that we disagree. You're still trying to make science say something other than what science actually says, I'm afraid.

Can you prove that? Science can't say either way, since we can't observe it. And yes, I guess my phrasing did imply my conclusion. I have never seen evolution happen, and neither has anyone else. If evolution was true, you would expect to find more evidence of the gradual change in the fossil record. To my knowledge, there has not been one "missing link"... that's why it's the "missing" link. It's missing. There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record. (Unless you can show it to me...)

Science can actually say a great deal, since we *can* observe the fossil record -- and, these days, the genes themselves.

Gradual change: Look up "Punctuated Equilibrium". Changes accumulate slowly, but the selection for a particular variant tends to be fairly abrupt -- and this really isn't surprising.

Missing link: Boy, are you out of date. Either that, your you're insisting that each time we find another point on the sequence it isn't acceptable as a transitional form.

If you insist on not looking at the actual evidence as we currently understand it, you won't see it. That's not the fault of the evidence.

My point is this (and I'm sorry... I don't think I made this clear enough): evolutionists are stating that we evolved from a lower life form (presumably from an animal). No matter how many adaptations and variations there may be among species, we have never observed or seen evidence of one species changing into another. No matter how many times you breed a K9 with another K9, the product will always be a K9. If anything you are loosing genetic information. For instance, let's use a wolf as an example. If you breed a wolf with another dog, breed that offspring with another dog, and breed that offspring with another dog (etc...) I'm sure that eventually you may end up with a Chihuahua. However, no matter how long you give it, that Chihuahua's offspring will never go back into a purebred wolf. There is a video on the link below that explains it pretty well... check it out:


If you want to look at it that way, you don't have any proof that there was a world before the year 1700 either; nobody alive observed it (if you take their word for it), and you certainly haven't.

However, there is one bleepin' huge pile of historical evidence that we have a past. You can insist on not believing it if you prefer, but doing so isn't particularly useful.

There is also one bleepin' huge pile of historical evidence that species have pasts. You can insist on not believing it if you prefer, but doing so isn't particularly useful.

Sorry, but your arguments really are extremely out of date. Feel free to continue fighting your straw man if you prefer, but doing so really doesn't convince anyone that you're winning against the real thing.

Where is the evidence??? And you still haven't told me where the first molecules or what have you came from. I'm sorry, but it seems that you are the one that is fighting a straw man... since you can't tell me where this evidence that you are talking about is, and since you can't tell me where it came from.

Even though no one alive today observed the year 1700, you have written accounts of people who were alive in the year 1700. You do not have a written account from people who were alive during evolution or creation. (Unless you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God who was there at creation... but since it seems that you don't, I'll do my best to debate this on YOUR ground.) (I'm just throwing that out there, I'm not trying to use it as evidence.)

And by the way, yes, species do have pasts, yes, there is variation among species (I have stated before that no one in their right mind would argue that point)

And the "real" thing??? Both are theories. Neither is provable by observation. Unless you can back up that statement with some "real" evidence, there is no "real" argument.

My goal is not to have anyone make a 180 from believing evolution to creation. (Although I wouldn't mind that!) My goal is to make you think. I have been in a few official debate rounds in my life time, now if this were an official debate round, I would be able to clobber you on technicalities alone. However it is not. I do my best to still be respectful towards you, and I would ask that you do the same. I have not tried to insult your intelligence, however, it would appear that you are starting to insult mine (and no, I am not stupid... I do have an IQ of 193...).

Like I have said, I don't ask that you ignore rational evidence, just that you look at both sides with an open mind. Do some research, you might be surprised with what you come up with. A good place to start might be Answers In Genesis. I'm not sure how much information they have on the web... I have mainly seen them in conferences... although the link I posted above is from them. I think I might post some more links below of some evidence for creation... assuming I have the time to look it up.

OK, here are a TON of videos supporting creation. Because these were designed to strengthen your faith in creation a lot of these are starting with the assumption that you already believe in creation, so I apologize ahead of time for that.


A ton of videos is not evidence; it's opinions. I grant that many people share your belief, and that those who share it hold it strongly. It's still a minority belief these days in educated societies, most of whose members don't insist on biblical literalism and are willing to accept that Genesis is a figurative/poetic account, and thus are willing to accept that evidence for creation just means that's how god brought the present into being (assuming you do feel there was a god or gods behind creation).

I'm afraid your arguments are "the sort of thing that is convincing to those who are convinced by that sort of thing" -- they may express your belief well, but they won't convince anyone who has considered the arguments they advance, compared them with the actual evidence, and still disagrees with them.

I'm not going to change your mind. You aren't going to change mine. We agree that we disagree.

I'll simply refer you to the lyrics for Cat Faber's song, _The_Word_Of_God_, which sums up my personal approach to this, and leave it at that.

Well, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe that God wrote the Bible through humans. (Which is entirely possible if you believe in an all powerful God). But that is really a whole different debate.

Let me ask you three questions.

1. What happens if I'm wrong and I die?

2. What happens if (hypothetically) you are wrong and you die?

3. (This has nothing to do with the previous questions... but...) Where did life come from? Nothing? Matter or chemicals that do not have a beginning?

I am willing to accept that evolutionists don't know where it came from... that's OK. Even creationists don't know some things. BUT if they don't know where it came from, then evolution is NOT a fact, and people should stop saying it is a fact when it isn't.

Just to throw this out there: If you believe that God is all powerful and can do anything, then you do believe that He could have used evolution to create everything if He wanted to. However, if He did, then everything we believe as Christians is worth nothing. According to the Bible, God created a perfect world. It was a perfect world until sin entered it. Until there was sin, there was no death. If you believe in evolution, then you believe that there was death before humans even came into the equation, so you believe that there was death before sin, so you really don't believe in the Bible. Evolution is just a way to bypass the probability of there being a God.

I agree that neither of us are going to outright convince the other. However, my goal is to make you think, and yours should be to make me think. If you want to convince someone of something that they strongly believe against, the best way is to get them to look into it for themselves.

I didn't believe that God created everything my entire life. I believe it now because I saw an insane amount of evidence that evolution was not possible.

Just think about it. Even if it is to prove my points invalid... I'm specifically thinking about the points that still stand. (Such as we have never seen one species change from one to another, and where did life come from.)

Sorry, man.The arguments you advance only work if one is starting from the same premises. Different assumptions produce different conclusions, even when both are manipulated correctly.

Yes, you can manipulate conclusions. That is called bias. I try to steer away from bias as much as possible. I try to use logic. I try to use evidence from the world around us.

This still brings up the question though... where did the original matter or chemical come from? By not answering this question, you infer that you do not know. I would be interested in knowing what you think about this.

Original matter/chemical aside. Do you realize how complex we are? The enzymes and amino acids that make up life are incredibly complex. The odds that they could randomly assemble themselves in the right order just for one life form are astronomical. Even when you add time into the equation.

By the way... this is not meant to be an argument, but I'm not sure what the current evolutionary estimate is on how old the earth is... do you happen to know?

You try to steer away from bias. You may believe you succeed. I'm not inclined to fight that one with you.

Yes, I realize how complex we are. Consider how long a time we have had to become this complex. And remember that there was no guarantee that we would do so -- unless you prefer to assume a deity was biasing the results, which I consider outside the domain of testability.

Original matter/chemical: Big Bang. 13,700,000,000 years ago
Formation of the solar system: 8,000,000,000 years ago.
Formation of the earth: Roughly 4,540,000,000 years ago.
Origin of life: about 3,500,000,000 years ago.
Origin of homo sapiens: not more than 500,000 years ago.

That's a heck of a lot of time for variation and selection to work over.

I said that I TRY to steer away from bias. When I originally accepted creation, I was biased toward evolution... now I am biased toward creation, but when "discussing" how the world began, I TRY to put bias aside.

Yes it is a lot of time for variation and selection to work over, however, the chemicals that make up amino acids (the building blocks of life), are extremely fragile. By definition of natural selection, we shouldn't be here. The probability of life forming (even with millions of years) is very slim. I would have to say that if evolution did happen, then a deity would have had something to do with it. (At least logically) (and I do agree with you that it is outside the domain of testability... but so is life forming from nothing.)

Which still brings up the question: Where did the original matter or chemical come from?

By the way... I thought that the big bang was an out of date theory... was I mistaken??? (I could be wrong, I just thought that evolutionists ditched that theory a few years ago. I have a ton of arguments against the big bang that I have been holding back, thinking that it was an out of date argument!)

You're redefining natural selection to meet your biases. As you're redefining theory. I'm sorry, but you're reading through a very thick set of filters, and at this point I'm afraid further discussion is pointless.

How would you define natural selection? The way I understood it was that creatures with bad or weak qualities would die off leaving only those with strong qualities. Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but if I am understanding it correctly, then by definition, we shouldn't be here.

You're oversimplifying massively. Again.

Sorry, it's getting past the point where I'm willing to spoon-feed. If you actually want to know, there are lots of places where you can learn what scientists are actually saying rather than what you've been told third-hand that they're saying. If you don't want to know -- and I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't -- pointers won't help you.

I think we've discussed this enough that everyone else has a good sense of where each of us is coming from and how _they_ can learn more if they're so inclined. We should probably stop hijacking the kid's question.

Well... I personally think that it is you who is being told third hand what they are saying... (I actually know a few scientists personally), but I do keep forgeting that we are hijacking this kid's question. I'm willing to let it rest. I think the answer to this kids question that we all agree on is this: don't go jumping off any buildings anytime soon kid!!!! :)

What happens if someone else was right and you die without adopting _their_ religion? The argument cuts both ways.

You may want to look up the exact history of how the uniquely American brand of biblical literalism came about -- and what the rest of the Church had been doing up to that point, and continued doing -- before asserting that you speak for Christianity as a whole. Websearch "origin of biblical literalism" for some items which I expect you will refuse to accept but which I hope may give you some context.

If you aren't willing to look at the evidence that God wrote in the world around us, preferring the word as passed through and interpreted by and translated by fallible humans and explicitly excluding thousands of years of history of interpreting that word... that's your choice.

If there is a God and I am wrong about which religion I choose, then at least I am closer to the truth than someone who doesn't believe in a God. It's one thing if you believe in a God, but just not the same one. It's a whole other argument. However, the point of my argument was this: If I am wrong, then I believe that you would say when I am dead then I am dead and that's it. However, if I am correct, and you are wrong, then you have an eternity of pain and suffering that you can't even begin to imagine. My point is this: I have less to loose by being wrong than you do. Even so, I constantly question whether or not having a God makes sense given the evidence around me. Just the threat of endless pain and suffering should be enough to at least consider whether or not you might be mistaken.

Regarding the origin of biblical literalism, I was not able to find any creditable sources with out spending a lot of time on it... mostly just blogs and Wikipedia articles and such... so would you happen to know of a good site to look that up on? Thanks!

According to the Bible, scripture is God breathed. This means that God used the bodies of humans to communicate His infallible word to us. This is totally possible if you believe that He is all powerful. Kind of like if you were to make a puppet. If you made the puppet (or even if you didn't in most cases) you have a good understanding of how it works. It is so simple, that you probably wouldn't even have to think about how to make it talk. But if it is talking, it is really you talking through it. That's the closest analogy that I can think of.

Even though there probably are errors when the Bible is translated, many original manuscripts have been found (like the dead sea scrolls). When those were translated, there was very little deviation from what the Bible is today. This is really a whole other argument, it would more or less fall under whether or not Christianity is true if there is a God. I am trying to stick to evidence that you can see in the world, because I try to debate on other peoples ground. There is normally always common ground, no matter what you believe.

Believing there is or isn't a god can be completely orthogonal to believing in evolution.

I'm an agnostic theist. I have no opinion on whether or not god exists. I can not, however, believe in a god which is as *small* as the one you're postulating.

How am I defining a *small* God? I'm not sure that I understand your context.

You're describing a god which is small enough that the BELIEF (not even the actions!) of individual humans matters. A god which is petty enough to set up a system where we have to guess, with no evidence, which religion is correct or wind up in hell (and what's that supposed to accomplish?). A god which is incapable of working on a timescale of millenia and insists on trying to cram it all into 4000 years. A god which is the creator of the heavens and the earth -- and there's a heck of a lot of "heavens" out there -- yet feels compelled to micromanage. One which insists on creating misleading evidence to "test the faith" of believers -- which is one heck of an insecurity complex.

I'm sorry, but the deity I'm agnostic about is one which is competent to set up a universe right the first time and let it operate correctly, modulo an occasional tweak of large-scale knobs.

OK, I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. However, the way I look at it is this: He did make it the right way the first time, but rather than make robots that had to obey Him, He gave us free choice. We used that free choice in the wrong way, which created a gap between Him and us. Yet, He cared enough for us that He sent His own Son to die a horrible death for US, so that we COULD avoid hell. The only thing we have to do is believe. There is a lot of evidence out there, but people have a tendency to close their eyes to it. Most evidence that evolutionists use can be used for creation as well, and for me, it makes a lot more sense within the creation perspective.

Here's the thing: the God I am describing is so perfect that even one sin is enough to keep us away from His presence. Yet, He made a way to bypass that. The problem is, we spit in His face every time we sin. He is capable of working on a timescale of millenia, however, he decided to do it in about 4000 yrs. Why? I have no idea. I don't need to know. We don't know everything, but he does. Yes, there are a lot of "heavens" out there (I assume you are talking about space, and not religions...), but that just shows how much more of an awesome and powerful God he really is.

Think of it this way. I will use a computer analogy, since I think we both have a decent understanding of them (and I think that you probably know more than I do). If you had a computer that you built from scratch and it got a virus that you couldn't find and get rid of easily, you probably wouldn't go searching through the registry and 50 other places just to find it. You would probably just have a backup of your data, wipe the drive, and re-install the system.

God was more gracious than that. Even after we started acting up, He didn't wipe us off the face of the earth, He gave us a way to be with Him.

I have never seen "mis-leading evidence". Evidence that has been manipulated to seem mis-leading... yes. I have never seen evidence for evolution that couldn't be explained by creation. Furthermore, I have never seen evidence that can prove evolution as a fact. Maybe I just haven't seen it, but until I do (and if I do, I will change my opinion... I am not close-minded), I see more logic in creation than in evolution.

Y'see, that's the key point: You presume an original sin and the requirement of blind faith to gain access to the patch. I have no need for either.

As I said: The problem with the arguments you advance are that they only work if one starts with those assumptions. If one doesn't... well, given a false premise, no other conclusion can be drawn.

I don't have blind faith. I have seen evidence for creation, and that's what I base my faith off of. I don't really see how some of my arguments can draw two diffrent conclusions, however, my origional comment was that neither theory is a proven scientific fact. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that either of us are arguing that point.

In fact, that's the only point I want to "argue." Your beliefs are your own -- but when reality disagrees with them, it's time to adjust the beliefs, because reality isn't going to give ground.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is. Both are called "theories" only because that's the technical terminology science uses in order to indicate that the exact details are still subject to further refinement as we learn more.

Reality does not disagree with my beliefs... at least not that you or any other supporter of evolution have shown me. Again, my original belief was not in creation, however, I have seen evidence that made more sense from a creationists standpoint than an evolutionists standpoint. I have never seen evidence that could actually prove either point one way or another. It's just a matter of which makes more sense. My major argument has been (mostly because that's what convinced me): Where did the original matter or chemical come from? No matter what belief you hold you are either believing in matter having no beginning, or a God with no beginning. It would make more sense that an intelligent God would have no beginning than matter. Now I'm not stuck on that argument... the only reason I always bring it up is because I have never yet met anyone who could answer that question. I have other arguments up my sleeve. Most of the arguments that convinced me are too scientific, and I could not explain them well enough without being a scientist.

Already answered your major argument. You don't like the answer, you don't want to believe the answer -- that's fair, but you really can't claim we haven't responded to it and expect us to believe you're listening.

OK, I'm sorry, maybe I somehow missed where you already answered where the origional matter came from. When did you answer that again?

Quick reminder, which I presume you're aware of but which some folks never consider: Those of us over about age 20 who live in modern societies have, in fact, heard all these arguments. If we have come to a different conclusion, we've done so after due consideration.

Which is why I try not to get into a debate of this set of topics. I'm willing to discuss them, in the interests of understanding where folks are coming from and letting them understand me in turn, but debate -- in which the goal is to "win" rather than to find understanding -- is minimally productive even when applied to topics where there is more consensus on the underlying facts.

BTW, getting back to the original question: There's a pretty good discussion of the common objections to evolution -- and why they don't actually work -- at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

I read less than one paragraph of that article and found some major errors. I would stay away from wikipedia as evidence if I were you... if you were saying that the videos that I posted were not evidence, then you should know better than to use wikipedia. Again, you mentioned something about the origin of Biblical literacy earlier, and I would still be interested in reading about that, but the only things I was able to find quickly were articles that looked like a 10 yr. old wrote them. Regarding the "discussion of common objections to evolution", if you have a truly scientific site that has that, I would love to read about it.

Not citing Wikipedia as "evidence", just as a summary. It, in turn, points to other resources.

And I suspect that the things you consider "major errors" are exactly the points we disagree about, which would mean you wouldn't accept any "truly scientific site" either. Not worth the effort on my part to test that, I'm afraid.

No, the person who was writing that was using out-dated information about the creationists point of view. I would expect a "truly scientific site" to be more up-to-date.

I was not aware of that statistic... but fair enough. Regarding your not wanting to "debate" these topics, that's fine with me... I would also prefer to "discuss" them, however, when someone starts debating them, I will not turn that debate away.

However, I just want to congratulate you... although this is the first time I've had this debate online, I've had it many times in person. You are the first person who has lasted this long. Maybe people were just getting tired of me... but still... ;)

would this website be explaining it properly?


If you are going to post evidence about specific arguments, please post specific links. This is to your benefit. By just telling people to look up "Punctuated Equilibrium", you risk that they could stumble upon a site that will not explain it the way you want them to see it.

If this site explains it the way you understand it, it has a major flaw. That is adaption/variation. NO PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND wouldn't admit that there is adaption and variation among species. It still does not explain how you can change from one species to another.

OK, so the majority of the world is not in their right mind. by your definition.

End of argument.

No... re-read my statement... I'm saying that people who don't admit that there is adaption and variation are not in their right mind.

Uhm... You're misunderstanding what scientists mean by theory. The reason that word is used is because science -- unlike religion -- accepts that someone may eventually be able to prove that some detail is incorrect, forcing the theory to be further refined... or another theory may take over. However, a scientific theory usually *IS* our best understanding at the time when it is proposed, and often remains valid even after refinement.

The process of evolution is, in fact, very easy to observe. Mankind uses it every time we breed animals and plants for specific traits -- we find one that is more like what we want than the others, and we encourage it to reproduce, and eventually that trait (unless it has negative side effects, and sometimes even then if they're minor compared to what we want) becomes established in that population.

And there is, in fact, a great deal of information available about how plants and animals have changed over a huge expanse of time, unless you assume that all the fossils were deliberately planted by an actively malicious god in order to cause us to come to the wrong conclusions. If that's the kind of god you want to believe in... well, I pity you; I'd rather worship the god who gave us brains and wants us to use them. "The profoundest form of worship is to try to understand."

Your real problem is that you're misunderstanding the time scale over which evolution has worked. Given that mankind is your reference scale, and that homo sap is a relatively recent development, I suppose I can't blame you... but the earth is MUCH older than you assume, life apparently came into being just about as early as it possibly could have, and there really has been enough time for evolution to produce everything from elephants to the common cold to your ne'er-do-well cousin Fred.

As you said: Do some research. Look at ALL the information, how it was developed, how self-consistent it is, and what people on either side do when presented with something that doesn't fit their expectations. (Hint: religions panic, science says "that's interesting, I wonder what that means."). Then, by all means, make up your own mind.

There's plenty of room for God to work through evolution, if you still want to believe in god -- unless you insist on painting Him/Her/It into a corner.


6 years ago

i must.... trololololol.


i believe in what sounds like the most feasible option, in this case evolution.
Personally, i really don't care if we evolved from monkeys or some old guy made us in a week.

That was Zen, this is Tao.

If you fall off a building, you generally won't survive to evolve.

If you toss *enough* people off buildings, the survivors may share some trait that improves their ability to survive this situation. Since you've killed off those who don't have that trait, it will be passed along to the next generation.

Look up what's really meant by evolution before you invoke it. "Variation and selection". First you need variation, then you need a situation where one of the variants has an advantage. Repeat for enough generations and you start to alter the gene pool.

Mutation is _random_. Most mutations are fatal. Most of the remainder are disadvantages. Most of the remainder are neither advantages nor disadvantages. Eventually a situation may arise which turns a disadvantage into an advantage (sickle cell disease provides some protection from malaria), or where something that was previously neutral now matters.

You can't take a wolf and make him into a chihuahua. You _can_ take wolves and eventually -- much to my disgust -- eventually breed chihuahuas from them, if you find the right accidental variations and mutations and select for them.

So, no, the trick of the mind is wishful thinking. I'm sure you can convince yourself that you're able to fly. Gravity, unfortunately, won't be impressed by this.

Let's put it this way: I believe in thinking yourself into a new creature about as much as I believe in fairies. Doesn't matter what words you throw at it, you're proposing magic, not science.