Sorry for taking a day; according to my last post on this thread I've been eating the whole time
SO MUCH TO ADDRESS; where to get started?
"Random mutation?" I have a LOT of trouble believing the eye, or a leg is a 'random' mutation. They seem quite purposeful and more like a response to certain criteria. Why did certain fish develop legs, while others have existed since that time period and still have yet to develop them?
Because "God Wills It!"
The problem with that post is that evolutionists don't claim that they're random, they claim they're driven by Natural Selection (best traits get passed on, etc.). True, they are purposeful; they are highly developed and in-betweens don't work so well. Saying random around an evolutionist is just a bad idea.
You can't get both sides of the argument by comparing science based evolution and religious theorizing. The anti-evolutionary creationists are trying to dress religion up as science, when it is not. It is patently false and would be like calling blue in a coin toss and saying it is as valid as calling heads against tails.
Well I'm sure as heck not going to just blindly follow any one side; I don't think anyone should be told to not look at things from every angle or to not question the norm. The Science Channel's motto is "question everything", not just God. Most people believe evolution because it is most popular, "more scientific", or justifies their way of life (not pointing at any certain thing, please don't get offended there). Just because something is more popular definitely doesn't make it right.
Announced a couple of weeks ago: http://humannhealth.com/blue-eyed-humans-have-a-single-common-ancestor/217/
No new material is created here because we have no way of backing up the claim that one person "got" blue eyes originally. As far as we can tell (without guess-speculating), they've always been around; plus, there's always the possibility of hidden, recessive genes being in the population yet not being visible.
Punctuated equilibrium is not a bad theory, but I my view is that it is only part of the story, with gradual change punctuated by large environmental effects forcing rapid change through sudden expression of successful genes in a new and pressure filled world. Could you list some of those assumptions. Evolution as a theory is solid, though there is discussion on the exact mechanics of some of the finer points.
I personally find it a cop-out, but you also think of some of the other side's views as those too, so meh. It really looks like just making something up for the sake of a theory that is so deeply believed by most. It's there for the inexplicable "pauses" in evolution that really go against the theory. As for the assumptions, there are lots and I'd need more time that I don't have to list more, but here are a few: you must assume the world is unimaginably old for all these changes to realistically take place; from this you must assume that things can be dated to be millions/billions of years old with unreliable systems, and you must assume that bacteria can start from nothing (that's getting into another subject, I understand). Plus, you must assume that all the living things we see today can be explained through purely natural causes. That last point is why I don't understand people who try and mix Christianity and evolution, because it just simply doesn't work (I can explain how if anyone cares to know why).
Off the mark a bit there. If a mutation is bad, you will limit your chances for survival, in most instances. However, look at swimming, the laws of fluid dynamics mean that certain shapes are more suited to moving rapidly through a fluid. Therefore, various species with different shapes, moving to the water at different times will be more successful when they gain mutations that provide them with better shapes for swimming.
It is called convergent evolution, when a certain form best fits the job, many species will select for it over long enough period of time. Random mutation itself might be random, but the expression of these mutations is anything but random. If you have fifth leg you might be in trouble, but have longer fags or better energy storage then you may well succeed.
I was saying that we should find a more fluid "change of species" throughout history, but instead things are more or less distinct. And then you go and say that evolution is goal driven ("when a certain form best fits the job"); at least that's what it looked like in that post.
Oh, and what do you mean by "have longer fags"?
Like I said above. It really is not a debate. It is on one side one of the most heavily supported (through direct evidence) scientific theories going around (and the word theory does not equate to a guess as some folks like to think). On the other side is reactionary right wing christianity, who for some reason see evolution as a direct threat to their religious views.
I'd beg to differ, because we're (somewhat) debating it right now
. I understand the term "theory" (an explanation of the natural world that is backed up with evidence) and also get sad when people misunderstand that; it makes those talking about evolution look stupid when they don't even know the terminology. The thing is that we look at the same evidence in different ways; we both say "this fits here because of this", and so on to serve our theory. We both dismiss things that don't make sense according to our beliefs as "we'll explain that later". It's more heavily supported because it's mainstream and most of the scientists back it up. I can explain how it doesn't fit with Christianity if you are wondering.
10 people are in a group, divided into pairs. One of the people in the group is blonde. Each pair of people create 3 children, meaning 21 members of the population do not have the blonde trait, while 4 do. But since the trait is recessive, it is far less likely to show up with each passing generation. The admixture will dilute until the blonde feature is no longer visible. Evolution only works if two brunettes can spontaneously create a blonde, by way of some unknown, outside catalyst.
We have no idea how many blondes there would be because we don't have the punnet squares in front of us, so we can't tell the chances of this happening. For all we know the blonde trait could be recessive and be "hidden" in the population somewhere by carrying possible genes while not outwardly showing them.
O type blood is a good example of a recessive trait that is actually expanding it foothold in the gene pool.
Well, sure, there's change in the ratios of different traits there, but nothing new whatsoever.
I might have (and probably did) miss some things back there. Bring it up again if you want to ask me.
