I did answer all of this, adaptation - call it "micro-evolution" if you want, creationism allows for micro-evolution.
But you didn't address it specifically. You just briefly summarized it as adaptation without explaining why. I want to know exactly why "science is wrong" and why you're right. This is what I want you to answer, specifically and in detail. Please. I don't see how this can go further without it."Why not? Adaption is what evolution is all about. In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection had to be found. In order to move around, they utilize lateral lines to detect fluctuating water pressures. They also have tastebuds all over their head, can store four times the amount of fat and have unpigmented skin. How is that not evolution?
Also, you still haven't answered this question that I asked:
""Why do the eyes start to grow and develop during embryo development, which is later suddenly stopped, and a fleshy layer grows over the partially formed eyes?""
No, you forgot one very important word, allow me to correct your statement:
"Evolution & an ancient earth is included in EVOLUTIONARY science."
No, all science points to an ancient earth. It's not disputed. It's pretty much the same thing with evolution, except the evidence isn't as
overwhelming. Science could cast off everything we know about commen descent as creationism. But that would be very contradictive on sciences part, and would get us nowhere. Once again, science seeks to explain natural phenomena via natural means. The supernatural is not included in science, and how could it?
I can, and do, understand why EVOLUTIONARY science insists that they are "indicative of evolution". The reason it is wrong for us to conclude there is a relationship, a common distant ancestor, is because we are not related, in any way/shape/form, to chimps, mice, cats!
That's your prejudice in creationism showing through. You are trying to tell science that it's wrong because "god did it". According to science and observation, there is a very good reason to reach that conclusion. According to creationism, it's wrong because it doesn't agree with what it teaches.
EVOLUTIONARY science most definitely is "out to disprove creationism"!
No, science sets off to explain as much as possible. Evolution is a way of explaining how life came to its form today via natural means, instead of resorting to a supernatural deity. Disproving creationism is not its intent. Its only focus is to explain how we came to be using only the natural world. It does not associate itself in any way with creationism, because that falls in with the supernatural which science doesn't refer to.
Not all reactions must "occur for a reason", other than that they are simply a reaction. EVOLUTIONARY science demands that they occur for a reason!
Then why don't I have all sorts of wacky reactions going on constantly? All our reactions can be explained, bar goosebumps - but we can link that to other animals since they use the exact
same mechanism and it serves them a very important function. Science asks why and how to everything it can.
Real science doesn't connect dots that don't exist. EVOLUTIONARY science demands that the imaginary dots be connected.
But the dots do exist. What about all the similar genetics, the comparative anatomy, the transitional fossils, the vestigial organs, the junk dna (broken vitamin C gene in particular), the fossils, the morphological similarities, mirco evolution, artifical selection, obvious S@xual selection traits in us(eg, a heterosexual women tends to be more attracted to men with higher testosterone levels, which usually results in a wider jaw, wider shoulders, thin waist, body hair, deep voice etc. Heterosexual men tend to prefer women with higher levels of fertility - eg wide hips, thin waist, large breasts etc. Why would god implant us with these genetic ideals? Seems unfair to the people born without the genetics.) etc? Science looks at the dots, notices the similarities and draws an evolutionary line between them.
Yes, your EVOLUTIONARY world view does demand that you think that way.
No. Certainly not in the way your creationism worldview demands that you cast off evolution just because it doesn't fit in with creationism.
If I could disprove evolution, I would publish it tomorrow (it still wouldn't point towards creationism). I have no emotional attachment to it - I just looked for the most scientific and rational theory which holds the most evidence. Other than evolution, there aren't any (that I know of). I obviously don't resort to creationism, because the supernatural isn't in the realm of science, and science is all I'm looking for. Anyone can make up a story about origins based on untestable & unknowable supernatural intervention, but you have to prove science and not resort to anything but the natural world.
Real science would admit that it can only observe commonalities/similarities, it can not say that similarities are indicative of relation, it can not say that we are related by some common ancestor. [u]Real science does not say evolution is a fact.[/u]
What about observed speciation and transitional fossils? What about artifical breeding? We have been able to play the role of natural selection and decide what traits we want to keep or lengthen/shorten or change in dogs. They have not speciated, but to be honest I wouldn't be all the surprised if it happened in the future.
They all seem pretty indicative of relation. If you want examples of the observed speciation and transitional fossils - I'll be more than happy to give them to you.
[b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science [b]demands[/b] that there is a relationship.
Evolutionary science notices the similarities and evidence and then points to a scientific, natural conclusion - evolution. It's purely based upon science.
No, they don't have to. [b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science [b]demands[/b] that they do, but real science doesn't have that obligation.
"Real science" has the obligation to explain everything it can through natural means. Evolution is the conclusion it drew. Also, could you explain why efficiency is not important?
[code]Ahem, [b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science isn't. So [b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science asks why.
Real science only observes and documents, real science only asks "how", real science doesn't presume a relationship, real science can notice similarities and document them, but it can not demand a relationship.
But "real" science can conclude there is a relationship, if given sufficient evidence. Also I don't think science is confined to "how". It asks everything.
I don't need my position validated.
So, then it's not based in science. It's just an opinion tied in with your beliefs.
Well, you did say "if you're interested" - so it is my choice whether to be interested or not. Besides, you provided a suitable answer yourself in the same paragraph. Now we probably don't agree on the time line, my "distant ancestor" would be a human being that lived within the past 6,000 years; your "distant ancestor" would be some sort of homo erectus xyz that lived within the past million years.
Yes, I thought it might interesting to add to the discussion. However, if you're going to reject it - I would like a reason why, if that's all right.
So if you accept that one mutation can become a part of every human, then why is evolution so far fetched? With evolution, there is also a much bigger timeline which makes it even easier.
We have strayed way off the point of the OP, let's get back to it as you have provided some excellent examples yourself, right here in this thread.
Yes, we definitely have. If we are to continue, we should probably try to return.
Here is the title once again:
Personifying Evolution; Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution
(I think the word sutlely is mis-spelled, it should be subtly - we won't tell Eocene;))
Haha, yes he has. But returning to that point, (which I have already explained) the only reason why some words like that are used is because of either a lack of understanding in evolution or an oversimplification to make it easier to understand for the layman. I have already pointed out that the sign Eocene was talking about was wrong.
(the first example is from your very first post in this thread)
"And as to why other examples of snakes didn't evolve venom, it is simply because [b]they didn't need to[/b]."
- As if they could realize this need, or lack thereof.
Wow, I have explained this so many times. It doesn't mean the snakes realized they needed something. The random mutation occured that offered an advantage. Here's a follow on post from that quote you cherry picked."Here's a hypothetical scenario:
The other snakes might not have been a part of the rattlesnake population. Therefore, they didn't mate so the genes of the rattlesnakes didn't spread to the other populations (I don't know whether they were seperate species or not). As I said above, they must have already been atleast partially adapted for them to be able to continue to produce offspring in the first place. Hence, the development of venom was not vital for them. Also, there is no goal for evolution, so whatever works is what we see in organisms. Venom is only one possible way to go. And if it's not needed in a certain location due to different predators or prey, then there is no real reason for it to evolve (if the other defensive / offensive mechanisms work just as well as the venom would in that environment)."
"A strand might [b]get swapped end for end[/b]. A section may [b]be snipped out[/b]. A section might [b]be inserted[/b]. Or the entire gene might [b]be duplicated[/b]."
- Who/What is doing the swapping, snipping, inserting, duplicating. This implies intelligence!
Nothing is actively planning the swapping, snipping, inserting or duplicating. It does not imply intelligence. Random copy errors occur all the time. Here's a quick overview.
"First of all, once a trait is imbedded into the genetic code of a population, it can be difficult to remove, simply because there is generally no reason to remove it."
- Who/What did the "imbedding", who/what is gonna "remove" it, who/what is doing the "reasoning"?
Natural selection. I know you're going to leap at me and say it's an intelligent process, so I'm just going to copy and paste my answer of how it works. "Natural selection is just a name to describe a process. There's nothing intelligent or conscious about it. The mutations occured naturally and if it highered the reproductive rates (longer survival [stronger muscles, better sight etc.), increased fertility etc) then it was passed on to more individuals and hence spread throughout the population due to the rest being unable to compete as well. These are beneficial mutations. If the mutation worsened the individual (weaker, poor sight, prone to diseases, bad heart etc etc.) then that individual either dies before he can pass on his genes, or simply doesn't compete as well with the new "better" characteristics and gets eventually washed out. These are deleterious mutations.
Hence, natural selection inadvertently "filters" (notice the parenthesis) the mutations. It can described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious or deliberate about it, as I explained very simplistically above.
"While onland, they now had to find a way to compete and survive with all the other organisms on the land, so the [b]focus turned to adapt with a land environment[/b] as opposed to a water one."
- This implies they were able to "focus" their own evolutionary adaptations, this is implied purposeful participation in the evolutionary process!
No, it doesn't. I was using focus on a broad scale. If you read the rest of my post, you should have realised what I was saying.
"Yes, humans fish. That doesn't mean it's evolutionary advantageous for us to become fish. Keep in my mind also that it's not very efficient to have both a set of lungs and gills.
But once again ikester7579, all that post does is imply a lack of understanding of evolution on your part. Evolution does not follow a hierarchial path of ideals. What works, survives, what doesn't, dies. If our ancestors moved away from water, they did so for a reason. And they were able to make the transition by slowly becoming more adapted and suited to a land environment. As they moved further inland, being able to breathe underwater became unnecessary (cool & fun on your part, but not necessary to ensure the survival of the human species, which is all that's needed) and maybe even a burden. While onland, they now had to find a way to compete and survive with all the other organisms on the land, so the focus turned to adapt with a land environment as opposed to a water one.
Also, most fish can't breathe outside of water. So in order for them to adapt to a land environment, their respiration system must chage.
Another also - we don't need gills to catch fish. We have our brain instead.
"In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection [b]had to be found[/b]."
- As if the fish "found" the other method.
No, but for the species survival, the method had to be found - regardless of whether it would be. If it wasn't, they would have died or moved. A random mutation obviously offered a slight advantage and that fish was able to manoeuvre more easily in the new environment. So the method was "found" inadvertently without any deliberate intent through mindless mutations.
Now you can attempt to back-peddle and explain why you have used these "intelligence attributes" in your own posts. As for me, I'm done with this thread
It's simply a way of explaining it easily. I'll try to be more careful from now on. But, I don't see why you attempted to invalidate my position through such cherrypicking, when I have already explained what I mean by evolution many times.
It's a pity you done with the thread. I thought it was interesting. Also, I apologize for the size of this post - I wanted to address everything you said specifically