Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
ALL: (Pssst! Do you think he really can't see?)
You're showing you do not know what you are talking about. Evolution theory says nothing about "complexity." It merely says organisms change to adapt to their environment or they die. Your adding the "complexity" does nothing but set up a strawman argument.
Stop being ridiculous. Are you saying that man did not evolve from lower species? Are you saying that evolution does not say that man evolved from lower species? Or are you saying that a man is no more complex than a single celled bacteria? Pick and choose Junior, either way you lose.
What is your definition of a "lower species?" The term does not come up in scientific literature. All species either adapt to their environment or they die. Humans adapted to their environment, supplanting other hominid species, including their progenitor species. There is no "lower" or "higher" species because there is not scientific manner to determine whether a species is lower or higher than any other. Species either adapt and survive or they don't. That, in a nutshell, is the sum total of Evolutionary theory. There is no overarching philosophy, no rules for living one's life, nothing metaphysical at all. It is simply a description of a process, nothing more nor less. Your constant forays into the metaphysical indicate a clear misunderstanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
Another thing that the evolutionists like to forget is that the genes of each species, even when coding for the same function, are different from each other. The genes (and there is more than one necessary to provide all the necessary capabilities for eyesight) for the eye are different in each species even though they work towards providing the same functionality. Clearly if each species evolved from each other, if each species was perfected through survival of the fittest, we should see after a while at least, that each species had the exact same gene for each function. Yet this is not the case. A simple proof of it is the fact that although all blood does the same work in different species, blood is not interchangeable between species.
Are you sure that's not a disproof of design?
You just make this stuff up yourself as you go along, don't you? Want us to peer-review it for you before you submit it to Nature?
Then again, you don't have too many peers on this forum.
That's one of the problems with evolution - the creature must remain fully functional while all these changes are going on. These creatures must be able to survive while the supposed improvement is occurring. What is more, these improvements must be integrated with the rest of the organism. For example a mutation to allow the growing of a wing has to replace the hands with something in the meantime to enable the organism to feed itself without hands. Until the wings are operational, the organism would be less fit than other individuals without this improvement. You see the problem with evolution is time, it takes time to evolve. The organism does not know that once the new trait is fully developed, it will be better off. All it knows is that the new as yet undeveloped trait makes him less fit at the moment.
That would be quite an accomplishment, a phenomenon to which a creationist could not say, "Goddidit."
Maybe if you stopped thinking as if it's just one organism that's doing the evolving. It's generations upon generation of a whole population that do the evolving.
You don't know how to think in evolutionary terms at all.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
Now you have random mutations working together to achieve a goal! Do these random mutations talk to each other? Do they know what the goal is? Do they have a plan for making the organism more fit?
Nope. What works, works.
In 1971, two fossil platypus teeth were discovered in the Tirari Desert in South Australia. They are about 25 million years old, and have been named Obdurodon insignis. The modern platypus has only vestigial teeth which are replaced by horny pads when it is still a juvenile. The fossil teeth are similar enough to these vestigial teeth to allow identification, and they show that ancient platypuses had teeth as adults.
The above is totally laughable - from 2 teeth they determine the characteristics of an animal that does not have any teeth! When I say that paleontology is a fraud, this is what I speak about.
I rest my case, at least for tonight.
Well there is a very good reason why we do not. Paleontology is not a science, it a self-fullfilling prophecy. If it has 3 earbones then they call it a mammal - even though they do not have the slightest idea whether it had mammary glands or not. Take the platypus again - it lays eggs. If it was not a living being paleontologists would say that it gave live birth - because what the heck it had 3 earbones. We know exceedingly litle about extinct species. In spite of lots of good dinosaur specimens we do not know if they had mammary glands, we do not know if they had scales, feathers, green skin, brown skin, purple skin, we do not know if they were warm blooded or cold blooded and a hundred other characteristics which are very much a part of a species, very much a part of the genome of a species and very much the concern about someone really trying to determine if evolution is true.
Amazing, you contradict yourself in the same sentence and think you are being profound! You cannot have it both ways, and punk-eek (to explain the lack of fossils) sends its specimens on vacation to Hawaii so no one will be able to find the bones while all this is going on.
There is also another problem with punk-eek. If the species is reproductively isolated (like in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, etc.) how does it get back in the mainstream? The answer is it does not. So this nonsense theory does not explain the vast majority of species which are not to be found in such isolated places.
The above is just pure supposition and there is proof against it. One great example is the camel and the llama. These two "species" became separated tens of millions of years ago. They developed differently, they adapted to fairly different environments, yet they remained one and the same species throughout this large period of genetic isolation. Just a few years ago they were able mate one with the other. If evolution is that slow in producing new species, then it is totally impossible for it to be the answer of the vast variety of life on earth.
No there is not any difference in actuality. Yours is just a semantic argument. If gradual evolution were to be true, there would be lots of transitional fossils. In fact, there would hardly ever be two fossils which could be said to be of the same species (given the large differences in ages of fossils in any series). Punk-eek is just a desperate attempt at explaining away the failure of proving evolution through the fossil record.
That's a good laugh Patrick! There is no evolutionary explanation for these traits so you posit them as "from earlier stock". Quite ridiculous. First we are told that reptiles arose from amphibians which arose from fish. Now are you telling us that the catfish descended from a reptile? According to evolution there should be species which show a transition towards these features. Yet none can be found and you call these "proof" of evolution.
All your statement proves is what a joke evolution really is.
Perhaps not in scientific literature, but it does in non-scientific evolutionary literature such as the drivel written by Darwin. He was quite a racist and considered blacks to be lower species due to the totally unscientific garbage called the brachyocephallic (sp?)index.
Anyways, you are just playing dumb. I told you what I meant. Did man not evolve from a single celled bacteria? If that is the case then you needed lots of new characteristics, lots of new additions to the genome, lots of macro-evolution to get from there to here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.