Quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
#1 No, you are actually wrong. Your example of explaining it has by far more holes and problems than Evolution. Thus that theory stands and remains the scientific fact. Like others have said, the only way to remove evolution from being the scientific fact would be to find problems with it AND find OTHER MEANS to explain THOSE PROBLEMS without breaking the rest.
|
If a religious person believes that God created man and all the animals as they are in an instant, there are no less holes in the argument than their is for Evolution. In fact their are far fewer holes. The only problem religion has is proving the existance of God. That is the single problem they'd tackle. Evolution tackles millions of unanswered questions. I don't support either position for these reasons.
Quote:
|
#2 There is nothing to interpret. Natural Selection is anything which makes a difference in A and B cause A or B to survive natural problems. Humans are extremely bad examples, because we have developed an intelligence which helps us circumvent natural selection, or I guess one would say, win most of the time.
|
Are you saying Humans fall outside of the evolutionary process? If so, you're hindering and not furthering your support for evolution. Granted, I already agreed that "natural selection" will occur in situations. Natural selection is not the same as saying man evolved from cells.
Quote:
The only viable examples are things like the moth experiment posted earlier. You of course immediately say "but thats a silly experiment, of COURSE the black moth survives".. well, sorry, but that IS natural selection. The black moth is a mutation, and it survives, or the white moth is one and it dies. Either way, natural selection. Evolution has made sure that the black moths are preferred in terms of handing down their genes.
|
Sure, an example of natural selection. Not evolution in the broad sense that we evolved from simpler beings or cells.
Quote:
Also, mutation is something that not always is needs to be considered something spontanious. We evolve by mixing our genes. The example of humans being bigger now than hundreds of yours ago, you simply dismissed by saying "Well, but asians in america are taller than asians in asia, thus this has nothing to dow ith evolution, its a diet thing"... You do realize that we are talking local europe for example here and those people that were taller than others had a better chance of surviving thus giving away their genes.
|
Where are you getting your information from? There are many reasons why we're bigger today which includes better nutrition, health care, hormones, and food. And as you said, this may be a simple case of natural selection.
Quote:
Your main problem is the that you do not understand how for example a Fish evolves to a Lizard or the like. There are still today species in between those to which show the chain at least in parts. There are fish where the fins have evolved to something more similar to feet because they are mostly "walking" on the ground and not swimming.
|
I understand these notions very well. They're basic and simple which is one of the reasons laymen embrace it so readily. Most people have no interest in this stuff. If the prevailing notion is that evolution occurred 99.9 people will agree with it without giving it a second thought, especially if it comes from a trusted scientific community. After all the scientific community does know things. Scientific knowledge is clearly responsible for humankind's progress over the centuries.
Fish turningi nto lizards and vice versa is ludicrous and there is no definitive evidence for this. Species in between? Give me an example of one. You're already biased in your belief of evolution that you think an animal with fins and feet is a species in transition. It may not be. Another plausable explanation is that it's simply a species that has fins and feet (characteristics found in mammals and fish). One cannot conclude they're in transition by that observation.
Quote:
Evolution takes billions of years simply because it is so many tiny changes that need to be picked up by natural selection. For example, in case of the fish, there were those with big and small fins, the bigger the fin, the better they could hold themself on the ground, did it become too big they had problems again. Natural selection made sure that those with the right sized fin survived more than the others. That does not mean that NONE of the small or huge fin fish survived, it just means that MORE big fin fish survived causing a natural selection over a few hundred years.
|
lol that's pure conjecture. It's good story telling though. But it hardly has any grounds in the real world. There are tons of fish with big and small fins today.
Quote:
|
And it goes on and on.... Its not really a huge problem to explain all kinds of mutations.
|
A superficial investigation would lead one to conclude it's not a problem explaining all kinds of mutations. It really depends on the mutation you're referring to. We've observed bacteria mutate into different strains of bacteria. We've haven't observed cells evolving into multi-celled organisms.