Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhutocracy
Unfortunately you are wrong in basically everything you've said here. You should really actually read a few books on evolution so you don't make these mistakes.
"I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment."
Um.. thats exactly right. Natural selection never claimed to produce the objectively best result only the most adapted to the environment. What you said is like saying "I believe that breathing exists but only insofar as the lungs expand to draw in oxygen for the body"
|
I said that I agreed with Natural selection so you don't have to tell me what it claims or doesn't. The reason I chose to elaborate on natural selection is because many people mistaken it to be evolution, insofar as it explains how species evolved. I've read the books and stay abreast of them as much as possible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhutocracy
"Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it."
Wrong. Mutation is the engine of evolution. No evolutionist would say that because a mutation is an aberration it's not an example of evolution.. WTF? Have you even read the theory of evolution or just reading off creationism talking points?
|
Evolution presupposes that traits with benefits will be introduced and reproduced to keep a species alive and flourishing in its environment. Mutations therefore are not an example of evolution in the purest sense because they do the opposite.
Also you won't find any creationist talking points from me. I'm not religious. I don't know if God exists or not nor does it concern me much. I argue that their isn't enough evidence for evolution based on science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhutocracy
Basically do some reading on a topic before you try and argue it.
I think the reason it seems implausible to you is that you don't want to believe in it in the first place otherwise you'd know the obvious answer to a lot of these questions and erroneous statements.
Try reading a few Richard Dawkins books to explain the basic mechanism so you understand what evolution is.. even if you still don't want to accept it at least you might form some better arguments against it.
 |
I've done the same reading as you and was taught the same things as you in evolution class. I would like to believe in evolution. I want to know how we got here but I won't force myself to believe because of my longing for an answer, any answer. I think most people believe in it because it is a crutch and they need something to believe in.
I will read Richard Dawkin however if what he writes is no different than what scientists on the cutting edge of this science purports, his conclusions and writings will offer nothing new.