Replies

Here's a criticism of evolution that I need your help to shoot down:

An evolution of an animal from one species to another species (e.g. turtle to bird) is actually made up of numerous mini-evolutions of all the biological systems (skeletal, circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, digestive, etc) within that animal. Since all these biological systems are integrated together and depend on one another then each of these mini-evolutions would need to be coordinated with the other evolving systems. The odds for this to happen in one species let alone the entire spectrum of animals and plants is beyond statistically possible.

An evolution of an animal from one species to another species (e.g. turtle to bird) is actually made up of numerous mini-evolutions of all the biological systems (skeletal, circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, digestive, etc) within that animal. Since all these biological systems are integrated together and depend on one another then each of these mini-evolutions would need to be coordinated with the other evolving systems. The odds for this to happen in one species let alone the entire spectrum of animals and plants is beyond statistically possible.

This relies on an incorrect version of "evolution."

Each generation is minutely different from the previous one.

Each generation is the result of those who (1) survived and (2) reproduced.

These minute changes in the genome add up over time. Any changes which are deleterious (fatal) are, well...fatal! Out of the game. Any changes which are neutral or beneficial are retained to possibly (1) survive and (2) reproduce.

To say that "The odds for this to happen in one species let alone the entire spectrum of animals and plants is beyond statistically possible" is to beg the question. Either you support the theory of evolution, with minute changes adding up to large changes over time, in which case the statistics are meaningless, or you believe that evolution couldn't happen as theorized, in which case statistics are a possible tool against the theory.

And you know, those who think statistics are against evolution -- they're against evolution from the beginning. Statistics are just a wedge to try to gain some traction.

An evolution of an animal from one species to another species (e.g. turtle to bird)

If you are going to play science, you need to use the terminology precisely

It's

An evolution of an animal from one kind to another kind (e.g. turtle to bird)

Transition of species

is observed.

"But they're both still lizards" < /Creationist rejoinder>

Here's a criticism of evolution that I need your help to shoot down:

An evolution of an animal from one species to another species (e.g. turtle to bird) is actually made up of numerous mini-evolutions of all the biological systems (skeletal, circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, digestive, etc) within that animal. Since all these biological systems are integrated together and depend on one another then each of these mini-evolutions would need to be coordinated with the other evolving systems. The odds for this to happen in one species let alone the entire spectrum of animals and plants is beyond statistically possible.

---

I strongly reccomend a biology text book. Or alternatively a pop science book along the lines of Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins.

(e.g. turtle to bird)

Perhaps you should begin your journey to understanding by reading a biology book!