i think so. obviously, i'm not a biological scientist, but i think the principles of what some people refer to as "micro"evolution are easy enough to understand. the problems arise when we start talking about common ancestry and "macro"evolution. at that point, there are some pretty basic unanswered questions. one of the questions is this: why is the fossil record missing the critical evidence of what would be normally referred to as "transitional" species. should there not be many, many more examples of species that are "between" the development of what are now "unrelated" taxa? the common argument is that umpteen million years of mutations plus natural selection bring about changes in the genetic fabric of life, but the only place we see lots of examples of clear "beneficial" mutation is in very primitive life forms. in "higher" forms of life, mutation seems to be almost universally damaging. another problem i see is that evolutionary theory is hopelessly engulfed in speculation about the development of complex organ systems. some of the explanations have virtually the same probability as claiming "miracle", so why vastly improbable explanations are favored is a really odd matter to me. i have no problem with the idea that the eyes of a donkey have evolved so that a donkey can see all four of its feet. that makes complete sense. but the physiological apparatus that enables sight is so complex that it's hard to understand how it might have developed "randomly". there are specific steps that have to happen in a specific way, completely unrelated to each other. unless there is a design component involved, it's incredible.
yes i do. and that's your problem. you think that eventually science is going to give well-reasoned answers to the multiple questions about macroevolution that have been posed. you're satisfied with completely inadequate explanations because you have faith that science can fill in the blanks. what you don't seem to grasp is that it's faith that drives your thinking.
Science isn't faith; it's methodology. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4"]Evolution Made Easy[/ame]
My goodness, educate yourself. Seriously. And by that I don't mean that you should re-iterate the lies of the nice guys at Answers in Genesis. The answers to all your basic questions are out there. They've existed for a long time. Just pick up a biology book and read it for crying out loud. First of all, technically every species is a transitional species since life is in constant flux. But I know that's not what you mean, so let's just skip over this point for now. Secondly, we would in fact expect few fossils to begin with, since the vast majority simply rots away. Thirdly, we would indeed expect a lot less "transitional fossils" because by their very nature, these species existed for a much shorter time than those that are perfectly adapted to their environment, hence leaving less evidence. Finally, despite all these limitations, we do in fact have a great record with all kinds of transitions being obvious, here are a couple of very detailed examples: Whale evolution, evolution of the horse, human evolution. Here is a list of a lot more of those examples. And here is one particularly famous transitional fossil: Tiktaalik, which is a great example for how well the science of evolution works. The people who discovered the fossil found it according to the theory. They knew exactly where to look (375 million year old sediment of a river delta) and what to look for (they correctly guesstimated the morphology based on the fossils already known) and lo and behold, they found it. But the great thing is, that we wouldn't need any fossils to verify evolution, the genetic evidence is already so conclusive, that it trumps any lies cooked up by desperate creationists. 1) The vast majority of mutations is neither harmful nor helpful, but neutral 2) If a mutation is not neutral, the effect depends on the environment. This argument is as old as it is false. And btw, evolution is NOT random. In fact it's the opposite... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUjd8x-1xM0"]YouTube - Evolution of the Eye Part 1[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffcWKOZfTxE"]YouTube - Evolution of the Eye Part 2[/ame]
It seems that most presently observable mutations probably are negative, especially with highly specialized organisms...which reduced becomes tautological. Highly specialized organisms have already occupied pretty narrow niches. To observe a mutation, it has to have an effect. That species develop predispositions towards mutative weakness is evidence of evolution--that's the herd narrowing.
At least I'm not willing to make up shit about the universe to make myself feel better about my existence. I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing all of the answers. But you've clearly proven that you don't understand. Or else you wouldn't be using gaps in scientific knowledge as your evidence for a god.
The sad part is that these gaps int he scientific knowledge don't even exist. It's rather gaps in his own knowledge, willfully barred by religious dogma from being filled with actual facts.
My sincere question is, why aren't his posts in this thread considered trolling? I understand that he's sincere in his belief and I don't care. How does that shield him from what would be considered trolling anywhere else? He has essentially cut and pasted arguments into his head and repeats them every time. He uses ideas like transitional fossils and random which any person with an average understanding of this subject should know have been handled again and again. But no one thinks twice about taking the bait and replying to his trolls. Is it just cause he's a religious nut and religious nuts get afforded respect they don't deserve?
It's true, whether he sincerely believes this nonsense or not, he has proven that his closed mind is immune to facts that don't agree with his very literal interpretation of the bible, so one could call it trolling. However, unfortunately these views are widely held. My guess is that the majority of those people who hold these beliefs have in fact never been exposed to the truth and it is for their benefit that this kind of debunking takes place.
Here are two more great resources: Talk Origins This site pretty much deals with every creationist talking point out there. I don't particularly like the design of the site, both aesthetically and in terms of usability, but the search function does wonders. Just search the archive for any creationist claim and you'll find a detailed refutation. Iron Chariots A counter-apologetic wiki, named after god's kryptonite: This site deals with all kinds of Christian apologetics and points out the flaws in the various arguments. But there's also other stuff, well worth checking out.
These religious nuts are mental children, nothing more. I remember all the rationalizations I'd make to convince myself that Santa Claus was real, back in 1st grade. I'd tell people that Santa would send regular people, not elves, to toy stores to buy the toys he'd give out. Eventually, like everyone else, I accepted the truth. Same thing with wrestling. For some reason, my very young mind thought that when people said it was fake, that meant that the wrestlers were there to show off their muscles, not fight for real. So I'd get nervous when all I saw were built wrestlers. I remember the day I first saw Rowdy Roddy Piper, who wasn't built at all. In my head, that meant that wrestling was real, because then why else would Hot Rod show up, since he didn't have any guns to show off? So obviously, he's there to fight, and so was everyone else. Of course, maybe like a couple of weeks after that, it clicked that it was all choreographed. It's scary to know that religious fundies still have the kind of thought processes that the rest of us grew out of a long time ago.
I have a very close personal friend that is a YEC. I'm the only close friend he has that accepts Evolution. The rest of the time, he's surrounded by people that think and believe like him. And unfortunately for him, I'm an atheist. So my opinion on this subject in his mind is skewed heavily because of that. But it doesn't matter how much factual evidence I provide for him, it's no match for the constant onslaught of misinformation he receives from people that supposedly have his best interests at heart. Generally speaking, he's a very smart guy. But he lives a significant portion of his life in a cocoon. And I have a feeling that even if he were to consider what I'm saying, it would pose a significant threat the world he's built for himself. Church, friends, family: he'd risk all of that by really exploring it. I just don't believe he's brave enough for that.
it's absolutely hilarious that you think Dawkins' staged demonstration is evidence of anything. it's not evidence. the fact that a mollusk had a pin-hole eye isn't proof of evolution, and Mount Improbable (?)! you have to be kidding. the whole concept of the origin of new genera is predicated on the idea that there have been millions upon millions of advantageous mutations. the only place we see any significant evidence of advantageous mutations is in simple life forms. when you say "Educate yourself", you are saying that the smoke and mirrors nonsense that Dawkins is spouting is an accurate representation of how things work. but we don't really know that. we only theorize that. geneticists have been vainly trying to produce a useful mutation in fruit flies for decades, but there has been no progress. if concerted efforts toward useful mutations are unproductive, why would any reasonable person believe that undirected mutations would produce advantages, when virtually all observable mutations are harmful. Dawkins was a snappy dresser, though. highly evolved sense of style.
This is a textbook example of attacking the person and not the argument. And then repeating the same tired thing you said earlier that's already been addressed...
In fact, it's not hilarious at all, because you don't seem to get what this is. Of course it's not proof of anything. But it shows how it could have happened, it disproofs your assertion that the eye couldn't have evolved and it demonstrates that there is nothing random about it. And the fact that this demonstration isn't evidence of evolution doesn't mean that you can simply ignore all the actual evidence for evolution that has been presented to you. That is the only hilarious thing here. I'm afraid that I'm not. Wow...just wow. Do you really think that repeating a lie that has been exposed before will prove your point? I guess that pointing out actual facts to you is, to quote the Bible, like throwing pearls before swine. Actually, we know exactly how it works and so could you if you just bothered to pick up a biology book before you pretended to be able to participate in a conversation like this. You can actually watch how an egg is fertilized under the microscope, you can look at the genome, compare the DNA, you can watch it being copied by ribosomes, you can see how errors are made when they're copied, you can see parts of a gene crossing over, you can SEE IT MUTATE. Another lie. Again, whether or not a mutation is useful depends on the environment. Geneticists have put fruit flies into very different environments and they did indeed adapt over time. So much so that in the end, the fruit flies from the different populations couldn't interbreed anymore...something that we call speciation and which according to you doesn't exist. In case you're interested (but who am I kidding, you have proven to not be interested in facts), you can actually go to the library and look for this article, which describes one such experiment with fruit flies: Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. Pearls before swine, I know, I know. But here we go again: The vast majority of mutations are indeed neutral or their usefulness depends on the environment. Very few are outright deleterious and even fewer outright beneficial. And BTW, even if virtually all mutations were indeed harmful, that would still be enough leverage to drive evolution. All you need is time. Even if the chance of throwing a six with your dice wasn't 1/6, but 1/6000000000, then you'd still eventually throw a six, given enough time. witty...
Social pressure probably plays an important role. People who are in such a situation are of course less inclined to actually study the facts, because that could put them in a situation where their beliefs differ from that of their peers, forcing them to either lie about their beliefs or to potentially lose their social grounding. So they prefer to not study these things to begin with and rather convince themselves that the assertions they've been told are indeed true. To someone in that situation, ignorance might indeed appear to be bliss...