Argument against Evolution I hadn't read before...

[dmp]

If species evolve isn't it logical to assume given enough time between two seperate populations, geographically or otherwise isolated from one another, that eventually the genetic differences acquired thru generations would accumulate so that the two populations were sufficiently different to prohibit interbreeding? If not, why not?

I suppose it's 'logical' - but it simply has not/does not happen. Macro Evolution doesn't stop, if you are correct. There's no data showing a species continously adapting into something new.

 

[5stringJeff]

yes. They change. And if a population of individuals of the same species is split and put into two environments where the forces and conditions acting upon them are sufficiently different, different traits will be selected for, the populations will diverge.

And then you get into the William Joyce/Dave/Big D argument that this actually happened to humans, and whites got the upper hand. The slippery slope of evolution!

 

[Zhukov]

And then you get into the William Joyce/Dave/Big D argument that this actually happened to humans, and whites got the upper hand. The slippery slope of evolution!

According to one of their more dominant opinions, that IQ is the most desirable/important trait, the asians actually got the upper hand, followed closely by the whites. But you have to first agree that IQ is the most desirable trait for survival, which it is not. Reproductive ability is one of the most desirable traits, as far as natural selection and survivability are concerned. But by far the most desirable trait is genetic variability, which the human race as a whole has in spades.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And then you get into the William Joyce/Dave/Big D argument that this actually happened to humans, and whites got the upper hand. The slippery slope of evolution!

But you cannot deny the truth because of how some people extend it's implications. Maybe asians have higher IQ's, but are too docile, and succeptible to authoritarianism, to their detriment. Plus, these are all just averages, There are individuals of all races at all levels.

 

[Zhukov]

I suppose it's 'logical' - but it simply has not/does not happen. Macro Evolution doesn't stop, if you are correct. There's no data showing a species continously adapting into something new.

There's a considerable amount of fossil evidence showing a variety of species adapting to stresses over time. The problem is you can not simply point at a single individual and say, "here is a new species", because every individual is the same species as it's parents and it's immeadiate offspring (baring some kind of massive mutation, which would in all probability be lethal). The differences can only be examined across a gulf of time between two individuals that already are different species. This gulf of time is typically so wide our civilization hasn't even kept records for a significant fraction of one.

But remember it is a theory, so the fact that it is logical is important. The Theory of Evolution is the logical extrapolation of available evidence. No one was there to see it happen and there's no way of setting up an experiment to show rodents evolving into humans that wouldn't take several tens of millions of years.

 

[dmp]

There's a considerable amount of fossil evidence showing a variety of species adapting to stresses over time. The problem is you can not simply point at a single individual and say, "here is a new species", because every individual is the same species as it's parents and it's immeadiate offspring (baring some kind of massive mutation, which would in all probability be lethal). The differences can only be examined across a gulf of time between two individuals that already are different species. This gulf of time is typically so wide our civilization hasn't even kept records for a significant fraction of one.

But remember it is a theory, so the fact that it is logical is important. The Theory of Evolution is the logical extrapolation of available evidence. No one was there to see it happen and there's no way of setting up an experiment to show rodents evolving into humans that wouldn't take several tens of millions of years.

The (fact) Theory of Devide Design contains MORE evidece - my sole contention. I believe anyone who doesn't fear God (or his existance), and is of a scientific mindset, will agree.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, I don't believe in intelligent design but I don't see how evolution and intelligent design must be at odds. As has been mentioned the theory of evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of life, and science itself doesn't consider the existence/investigation of a divinity as part of it's purview.



I see no reason why a God couldn't have meticulously arranged every single sub-atomic particle 'at the begining' in such a way that our sun formed, a proto-planetary disk formed, the Earth formed, life formed, and then evolved with humans eventually showing up, over the course of billions of years, with the end result being a human race that knew it's creator.

-and-

I see no reason why a God couldn't have created the world as it existed 6,000 years ago with the snap of his fingers and just created a bunch of evidence that suggested everything posited in the first example had happened when in reality it had not. Some sort of trick or test, perhaps?


I don't believe either of those things happened, but I concede the possibility that either could have happened. What I do not understand is people who say things like 'there is no evidence for evolution'. There's plenty of evidence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What I do not understand is people who say things like 'there is no evidence for evolution'.

They're just jesus freaks, that's all. Nice enough folk. Good. Honest. Decent. But jesus freaks, nonetheless.

 

[dmp]

Well, I don't believe in intelligent design but I don't see how evolution and intelligent design must be at odds. As has been mentioned the theory of evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of life, and science itself doesn't consider the existence/investigation of a divinity as part of it's purview.



I see no reason why a God couldn't have meticulously arranged every single sub-atomic particle 'at the begining' in such a way that our sun formed, a proto-planetary disk formed, the Earth formed, life formed, and then evolved with humans eventually showing up, over the course of billions oof years, with the end result being a human race that knew it's creator.

-and-

I see no reason why a God couldn't have created the world as it existed 6,000 years ago with the snap of his fingers and just created a bunch of evidence that suggested everything posited in the first example had happened when in reality it had not. Some sort of trick or test, perhaps?


I don't believe either of those things happened, but I concede the possibility that either could have happened. What I do not understand is people who say things like 'there is no evidence for evolution'. There's plenty of evidence.

There is evidence to suggest within-species evolution...much evidence. IMO, there is not suffience evidence to suggest a bird ever became a dinosour, or vice-versa...or an ape-like creature eventually became modern-day man.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There is evidence to suggest within-species evolution...much evidence. IMO, there is not suffience evidence to suggest a bird ever became a dinosour, or vice-versa...or an ape-like creature eventually became modern-day man.

Actually a bird in my yard turned into a dinosaur the other day. I think I'll win America's Funniest Home Videos this week. No one was more suprised than the bird.

 

[5stringJeff]

They're just jesus freaks, that's all. Nice enough folk. Good. Honest. Decent. But jesus freaks, nonetheless.

Thank you sir!

 

[Zhukov]

There is evidence to suggest within-species evolution...much evidence.

No, there is actual proof of that. Take the common cold for example.

IMO, there is not suffience evidence to suggest a bird ever became a dinosour, or vice-versa...or an ape-like creature eventually became modern-day man.

There is certainly sufficient evidence to 'suggest' it because obviously people have. Perhaps you meant not sufficient evidence to 'prove' it, nor, quite honestly, can we expect there to ever to be.

 

[dmp]

No, there is actual proof of that. Take the common cold for example.

Right.