Replies

the topic at hand was that evolutionary theory is exclusive. evolutionary logic begs us to answer more though. you're refusal to answer more, while simply stating Creationists are wrong only proves your ignorance. your only counter-point is a dismissal, which is a sure sign of your losing ground.

and i am saying the human brain, according to evolution, would have taken several dozen generations to hone into anything more practical than our other animal friends'.

this leads into "half a wing is useless" hypothesis. i dont recall the man, but it was shortly after Darwin released his theory that this was brought up.

the thing is, if birds have wings, and they came from say raptors... when did raptors form a use for a wing?

similarly, if bald monkeys evolved a brain, when was an iq of 40 a boon?

the topic at hand was that evolutionary theory is exclusive.

Exclusive in that it deals with biological life forms, and nothing else.

evolutionary logic begs us to answer more though.

What is "evolutionary logic"? And why does it beg us to answer more?

you're

You mean "your"

refusal to answer more, while simply stating Creationists are wrong only proves your ignorance. your only counter-point is a dismissal, which is a sure sign of your losing ground.

Creationists are wrong. They present fallacious reasoning when trying to argue that evolution is impossible -- that is, when they even get the theory of evolution correct in the first place, which isn't that often.

I don't see how that relates to evolution not addressing the ultimate origins of life.

and i am saying the human brain, according to evolution, would have taken several dozen generations to hone into anything more practical than our other animal friends'.

And so it did. Or do you believe that all non-human animals are of equal intelligence.

this leads into "half a wing is useless" hypothesis. i dont recall the man, but it was shortly after Darwin released his theory that this was brought up.

Actually 'irreducable complexity' isn't that old, but it has been rather thorougly debunked. the thing is, if birds have wings, and they came from say raptors... when did raptors form a use for a wing?

When the first raptors had wing-like appendages that gave them an aerodynamic advantage over the ones without it.

similarly, if bald monkeys evolved a brain, when was an iq of 40 a boon?

When everything around you had an IQ of 20.

Actually, that's somewhat inaccurate, but only because "IQ" is a relative measurement.

similarly, if bald monkeys evolved a brain, when was an iq of 40 a boon?

When the competition had an IQ of 20.

this leads into "half a wing is useless" hypothesis. i dont recall the man, but it was shortly after Darwin released his theory that this was brought up.

And rebutted by Darwin in later editions of his work. But all you know here in 2004 is that someone brought it up in 1859 or 1860. Only certain things are allowed into the head of a creationist.

From the Sixth Edition of Origin:

All Mr. Mivart's objections will be, or have been, considered in the present volume. The one new point which appears to have struck many readers is, "that natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures." This subject is intimately connected with that of the gradation of characters, often accompanied by a change of function,—for instance, the conversion of a swim-bladder into lungs,—points which were discussed in the last chapter under two headings. Nevertheless, I will here consider in some detail several of the cases advanced by Mr. Mivart, selecting those which are the most illustrative, as want of space prevents me from considering all.
The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths. The Niata cattle in S. America show us how small a difference in structure may make, during such periods, a great difference in preserving an animal's life. These cattle can browse as well as others on grass, but from the projection of the lower jaw they cannot, during the often recurrent droughts, browse on the twigs of trees, reeds, &c., to which food the common cattle and horses are then driven; so that at these times the Niatas perish, if not fed by their owners. Before coming to Mr. Mivart's objections, it may be well to explain once again how natural selection will act in all ordinary cases. Man has modified some of his animals, without necessarily having attended to special points of structure, by simply preserving and breeding from the fleetest individuals, as with the race-horse and greyhound, or as with the game-cock, by breeding from the victorious birds. So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food. That the individuals of the same species often differ slightly in the relative lengths of all their parts may be seen in many works of natural history, in which careful measurements are given. These slight proportional differences, due to the laws of growth and variation, are not of the slightest use or importance to most species. But it will have been otherwise with the nascent giraffe, considering its probable habits of life; for those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects, will have been the most liable to perish.
We here see that there is no need to separate single pairs, as man does, when he methodically improves a breed; natural selection will preserve and thus separate all the superior individuals, allowing them freely to intercross, and will destroy all the inferior individuals. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.

Chapter 7, Objections to the Theory.

More importantly, in the "half a wing" case, you neglect that there is substantial evidence that the half-way thing existed at least once (more like several times at several places) in nature.

A theory that needs more detail to explain how this kind of thing happened is still to be preferred over one that says it didn't happen because it could never have. The one is merely incomplete at present. The other is already falsified, simply wrong.