Originally posted by browha
my philosophy teacher who is very heavily Christian, and also a physict, tells me, no matter how much he disbelieves evolution, it is a self-evident
Evolution is as proven as pretty much any other theory.
We have seen plenty of mammal change. Rats in New York have evolved to 30% larger than normal rats, as part of the process of natural selection.
I do not see how the laws of themal dynamics have anything to do with this in any sense?
I am trying to find this certain speices of bird, which people have seen evolve over it's journey around Britian -> America -> Britian to such a
degree that once the 'flock' has made the journey it will be unable to breed with the original flock.. I cant rememebr what it is though, so still
Evolution is a very logical and self-evident process. It's just that people were so god-fearing they chose to ignore the obvious
I'm sorry, but evolution has not been proven and will NEVER be TRUE science no matter how many people want to think it is science. Do you know what
science is? In order for something or a field of study to become science, one must be able to experiment with it in controlled lab environments. If
one cannot run tests and experiments and simulate the subject in question, then, by definition, it doesn't fall into the realm of science. The
problem with the theory of evolution is the fact that it needs millions upon millions of years to work. Therefore, no one can confine something of
evolution to a lab and simulate it to obtain data and to isolate variables and come to conclusions. Sorry, evolution is not science. It is closer to
religion than anything else. Therefore, since it's being taught in our schools as fact, it's a big problem, and it's irresponsible education.
It's deceiving when we have never proved evolution to actually exist, yet we teach it as absolute fact. There's no, "by the way children, what we
are learning about this week is only theory, so keep that in mind when we go through this.....", but it's more like, "this is the way it is."
I'm sorry, but that's VERY irresponsible.
Also, rats getting larger does not prove anything in consideration to evolution. So what? Natural selection is responsible. Evolution needs to have
new species coming from previous ones, and older species eventually changing and maybe branching off into newer types and so on. We see variety in
animals all over the place, true, but only variety WITHIN the species. There is NO hard evidence of a horse and dog being related, or an octopus and
a turtle or anything of that sort. Instead, variety in species may occur due to let's say if a certain bird happens to be born with an anomalous
color on the wing that helps it blend in to the surroundings better, and therefore can catch it's prey more often. Well, it will probably be the one
to survive to pass down it's genes to make more birds with this new mark on it. This is why Darwin noticed all the different types of finches, but
they were ALL finches, weren't they?
But why doesn't this same principle work in terms of more dramatic change, like a species transforming into a new? Well aside from the fact that we
lack any evidence for it, I'm going to address the argument that has to do with how the eye was first formed. First of all, the eye (not just human
eye, but in general) is one of the most complex organs, if not THE most complex in biology. THere's the eye itself, but then there's all the
complex system behind the eye, like the part that connects to the brain, and the part where the image reflects on behind the eye and all that stuff.
(Sorry, I don't have the technical names, but you probably understand what I'm getting at) Ok, now just keep that in mind while I move on. For
evolution to work, it calls for a species to change slowly over time due to random changes in an animal's biology due to a mutation of some sort,
that happen to benefit that animal to a degree that it enhances it's survivablilty in its environment. This enhancement gives it an edge over the
rest of its kind, so that, it has a higher chance of living until reproduction age, and then does so, making a new generation of offspring with the
same benefit. Then in the long run, this new type will eventually take over because the old will just eventually be filtered out. Kind of like I
described above with the birds. Ok, fine so far. So, in short, a bunch of small changes over time like this will eventually see the species in
question become very different from its original state. But here is where this system fails. If you want to try and explain how the first eyes came
about, this small incremental change pattern can't account for it. Why? Because, for the eye to actually work, all three or four complex parts of
the whole sight system have to be present.
So let's trace back all the way, millions of years ago, as evolution likes to do, to a time when life was starting. According to theory of evolution
life began with simple cells, and went from there. So fast forward millions and now we have simple organisms like ameobas, worms, jellyfish type
things, etc. Now let's just jump to the point where we think life first obtained sight. (The actual organism and specific time isn't important.)
Let's say it was a spongy worm type creature that, through mutation first evolved eyes. Well, in order for this to happen, this creature would have
had to given birth to an offspring that all the sudden had eyes, BAM, just like that and out of the blue! It has all the components working in
harmony and just had these sudden eyes and now it can see. Why couldn't it have been a gradual change as evolution claims? Because if this new
offspring was, instead born with just one component of the eye, (let's say the lense, but you could pick any you want) randomly from mutation, guess
what? This lense by itself is obsolete and would do crap for this wormy thing. Therefore, its survivability would not be improved, therefore it
wouldn't become the new standard of its kind to give way to more mutations and change.
So my point is, is that the first eye could not have come into being through small little parts, simply because for any benefit to exist, the whole
system woiuld have to be all the sudden present and functioning. And remember, evolution calls for minute changes over vast time, and each change is
beneficial, which is why those new animals survive more to replace the older. And so, a mutation that causes sight would have to be immediate and all
at once, which is in direct contradiction to evolution.
This is only one argument out of many good ones. I can give more if you want. I hope I stated it clearly. I realize that I could have made it
confusing. Bottom line, is that arguments like these discredit evolution, plus we don't have any evidence of interspecies transformation, plus the
fact that we cannot simulate evolution in controlled environments for tests makes this a study that IS NOT SCIENCE. And therefore James, you're
argument and complaint about creationism being taught instead is now picked apart because evolution is just as non scientific as creation. Two
theological views my friend.
Plus when I walk down the street, I'm sorry, but I don't look at an ant and see my long lost relative, or observe a wilted plant and get sad because
I'm related to it. It's really ridiculous. What really gets me, is critics of the bible always are like, "you mean we all came from two people?
HA! Yeah right!" Yeah, well look at your own little belief. "You mean we, and every bug, fungus, animal, and plant came from one or a couple of
spontaneous cells?!" I know which one makes more sense to me.
Here's an easy way to think of what evolution claims:
From the goo, to me and you, by way of the zoo!