reply to post by melatonin
Arguing about how many connections are made by one mutation is pointless. Like you said, one mutation "could" result in billions of connections.
You don't know this, you can't prove this, you can't observe this. All you can do is believe that it happened using the anthropic principle which
is, it must have happened because we are here today. I'm just saying it is improbable to happen by chance.
"And even if such a rate of evolving changes could be shown (and it can't), one is still left with the impossible hurdle of showing how the neurons
of a brain accidentally created the non-physical code necessary to communicate between themselves.
Purkinje cells located in the cerebellum each receive 100,000 separate and distinct inputs from other cells, each receiving 100,000 separate
electrical codes.
There are billions upon billions of Purkinje cells in a brain. Just imagine what a task it would be to organize and connect billions of Purkinje cells
together for the purpose of creating thought."
You can can believe what you want and have faith in evolution if you want. Evolution is not science because it cannot be observed.
Natural selection did not come from Darwin.
"Charles Darwin is often portrayed as one of the greatest original thinkers of science on a par with the likes of Newton. While his book On The
Origin of Species has probably had a greater impact on society than any other book -- except the Bible -- most of the evolutionary views he expressed
in On The Origin of Species were neither original nor scientific, but rather had their roots in Pagan materialism. The essential "Darwinian" axiom
of chance evolution by random change and "survival of the fittest" was broadly suggested by ancient Greek philosophers. Even the more refined
concept of "natural selection," which is often viewed as a unique contribution of Darwin, was clearly expressed by many others as early as a 100
years before the 1859 publication of Origin of Species.
The French astronomer and mathematician Pierre de Maupertuis (1698-1759) is generally credited with being among the first to have developed an
essentially modern theory of evolution which included a process of random change (mutation) and natural selection. In his book Essaie de Cosmologie he
said: "Chance one might say, turned out a vast number of individuals; a small proportion of these were organized in such a manner that the animals
organs could satisfy their needs. A much greater number showed neither adaptation nor order; These last have all perished -- thus the species which we
see today are but a small part of all those that a blind destiny has produced." Maupertuis was a very outspoken atheist who used his evolutionary
speculation involving "blind destiny" and "chance" in an attempt to refute the necessity for a sovereign God and purposeful design in nature."
And yes there is no other proof for evolution beyond extrapalating changes within one kind of animal. (micro evolution or whatever you call
mutations).
I agree that animals adapt to their environments to survive but I don't believe the rest of unobservable evolution.
