Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ron

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth

Recommended Posts

Actually, quite the opposite. Since a smaller organism is less complex, it has less parts, and therefore, mutations are not so prominently featured that go as far as to change the physical appearance of the organism. Were talking about Bacteria, viruses, these things are decepitvely simple and dont have many specific physical characteristics or individual parts that require it to function perfectly. As opposed to a larger animal, which has different and multiple physical characteristics, with a complex array of different parts that work in tandem with each other to produce a working body.

 

Think of it as this. The simpler a machine is, the more easier it is for you to reproduce it without making a mistake. But the more complex a machine becomes, and the chances of making a mistake increase, because of all the complex parts required. And, the more complex the machine is, the more types of mistakes you can make.

66071[/snapback]

I don't understand. Wouldn't the success rate of a random mutation be better for a simpler organism, like bacteria, rather than a complex integrated system like humans? Also the more complicated species have requires s@x which creates problems with fixation, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earliest self-replicators just needed to self-replicate. 

66169[/snapback]

You were there????

 

Also, for a molecule to “self-replicateâ€ÂÂ, something had to initiate the first molecule. Then something had to encode the information for it to “START†self-replicating. And that is the atheist’s logical, rational and scientific conundrum. Because it flies in the face of ALL science, and bumps up against logic, falls backward and fails.

 

More complex functions like encoding protein could have arisen later as adaptations that improved stablity, fertility etc.  This is in line with the evolutionary model of change due to mutation and natural selection.

66169[/snapback]

There is absolutely NO evidence that encoding proteins are not as they’ve always been. Therefore your comment above is purely conjecture and “a priori†presupposition. In other words, YOU as an atheistic believer in evolution, need it to be less complex, then “evolve†to become more complex, for it to fall in line with “the evolutionary model of changeâ€ÂÂ. And, unfortunately, conjecture is all you have.

 

You know that chemical reactions can occur due to observation. 

66169[/snapback]

Chemical reactions cannot occur DUE TO observation. That is illogical, and unscientific. If a chemical reaction occurs, it can be observed; but the observation has absolutely nothing to do (or, is in no way a catalyst) to cause the chemical reaction!

 

God is not observed and if existing would raise many unanswerable questions:  where did He come from?, how does He relate to the natural world? etc.

66169[/snapback]

Not unanswerable at all. And this is not a conundrum for the theist at all, but for the atheist!

 

Why? Because, if God were created; that would mean that there is just a greater God! And the atheistic faith in “nothing†still fails due to their illogical and blinding lack of philosophical foundation.

 

The bottom line is this; ALL the evidence points toward a Prime Mover/Creator. And, as we extend this out and out, there had to be ONE that caused it all. And It/HE did not cause Itself/Himself, for that would be illogical.

 

And, as to your question “how does He relate to the natural world?â€ÂÂ, quite simply; in the same exact way you or I relate to anything we create. As our disposition dictates!

For example: I compose (or write/create) music, lyrics and poetry. I can do with that creation as I wish, because it is MY creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that chemical reactions can occur due to observation.  God is not observed and if existing would raise many unanswerable questions:  where did He come from?, how does He relate to the natural world? etc.

66169[/snapback]

Where did God come from? God is eternal, he didn't come from anything.

 

The questions is if there is always a cause and effect, what is the first cause? If the cause is finite, than there always has to be preceding cause that created the preceding cause and so on and so forth. The only way to stop the cascading effect is that something has to be eternal: Either God or the universe. Since we know the universe had a beginning we are left with the one eternal first cause - GOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers. 

65990[/snapback]

And that, is what is known as a “Faith Statementâ€ÂÂ, due to a lack of any direct evidence, and based on mere opinion alone.

 

Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

65990[/snapback]

Quite simply stated; the evolutionists sees distribution of fossils, posits a fictitious “geological treeâ€ÂÂ, and claims Wah-lah!!! Macro-evolution (like magic!!! Just add evolution)!

 

The Creationists sees the distribution of fossils laid down in rock layers all over the Earth, and says “evidence of a world-wide flood†as recorded by many-many historic civilizations.

 

BOTH presuppose the outcome, but the latter has, at least a modicum of evidence.

 

The evolutionist sees the various kinds/species and posits (without empirical evidence mind you) development “over vast and presupposed amounts of time†of a species, genus, or group, as contrasted with the development of an individual ontogeny.

 

The Creationist sees the common design of kinds/species, and realizes that there is no evidence of these kinds/species being any different throughout recorded history, and therefore refuse to call “guesses†facts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were there????

 

Also, for a molecule to “self-replicateâ€ÂÂ, something had to initiate the first molecule. Then something had to encode the information for it to “START†self-replicating. And that is the atheist’s logical, rational and scientific conundrum. Because it flies in the face of ALL science, and bumps up against logic, falls backward and fails.

There is absolutely NO evidence that encoding proteins are not as they’ve always been. Therefore your comment above is purely conjecture and “a priori†presupposition. In other words, YOU as an atheistic believer in evolution, need it to be less complex, then “evolve†to become more complex, for it to fall in line with “the evolutionary model of changeâ€ÂÂ. And, unfortunately, conjecture is all you have.

Obviously I'm talking hypothetically. I was outlining the shared features of the abiogenesis hypotheses in response to Mama's post. The reaction leading to a self-replicating molecule would require energy, a fluid environment, building blocks and possibly a catalyst. This is no different from any other reaction and the "code" is the molecule's structure.

 

 

 

Chemical reactions cannot occur DUE TO observation. That is illogical, and unscientific. If a chemical reaction occurs, it can be observed; but the observation has absolutely nothing to do (or, is in no way a catalyst) to cause the chemical reaction!

I meant that the knowledge was due to observation (not the reactions).

 

 

Not unanswerable at all. And this is not a conundrum for the theist at all, but for the atheist!

 

Why? Because, if God were created; that would mean that there is just a greater God! And the atheistic faith in “nothing†still fails due to their illogical and blinding lack of philosophical foundation.

 

The bottom line is this; ALL the evidence points toward a Prime Mover/Creator. And, as we extend this out and out, there had to be ONE that caused it all. And It/HE did not cause Itself/Himself, for that would be illogical.

66199[/snapback]

The quantum effects leading to mutual repulsion and the creation of energy in inflationary theory do not require causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that, is what is known as a “Faith Statementâ€ÂÂ, due to a lack of any direct evidence, and based on mere opinion alone. 

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence? You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

 

Quite simply stated; the evolutionists sees distribution of fossils, posits a fictitious “geological treeâ€ÂÂ, and claims Wah-lah!!! Macro-evolution (like magic!!! Just add evolution)!

 

The Creationists sees the distribution of fossils laid down in rock layers all over the Earth, and says “evidence of a world-wide flood†as recorded by many-many historic civilizations.

 

BOTH presuppose the outcome, but the latter has, at least a modicum of evidence.

 

The evolutionist sees the various kinds/species and posits (without empirical evidence mind you) development “over vast and presupposed amounts of time†of a species, genus, or group, as contrasted with the development of an individual ontogeny.

 

The Creationist sees the common design of kinds/species, and realizes that there is no evidence of these kinds/species being any different throughout recorded history, and therefore refuse to call “guesses†facts!

66210[/snapback]

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones. The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

 

 

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones.  The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

66224[/snapback]

Care to show us some of this "direct evidence"? :huh:

 

Actually evolution is presupposed by palentologists when the fossil record shows long periods of statis and short periods of "rapid change"... Under a gradualism view of Darwinism this evidence goes against that theory...

 

(Hence why punctuated equilibrium was thought up, however it runs into its own problems with mutation rate and fixation rate of larger mutations)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm talking hypothetically. 

66223[/snapback]

Actually, you were responding to AFJ (in post# 135), and he was asking you a factual question “Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein?†that pointed out “factual flaws" in your hypothesis, and you continued to reply with “hypothetical†answers???

 

So it was not as obvious as you’d make out, is it… Actually, it was pretty obvious, but not in the manner you seemed to intend I guess.

 

I was outlining the shared features of the abiogenesis hypotheses in response to Mama's post.  The reaction leading to a self-replicating molecule would require energy, a fluid environment, building blocks and possibly a catalyst.  This is no different from any other reaction and the "code" is the molecule's structure.

66223[/snapback]

There are no actual “shared features†in a hypothesis (since a hypothesis is fictitious), and it wasn’t mama it was AFJ. Also, your statement begs the questions:

 

1- What guided the “First†molecule into existence in the first place (so it could self-replicate)?

 

2- Where did the “First†molecule get the code to self-replicate?

 

I could go on, but these are enough to get you scrambling for more hypotheses (instead of facts), to cover your faith statements.

 

 

And, as AFJ so aptly put it:

 

It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous.  And it makes more sense.

65993[/snapback]

I meant that the knowledge was due to observation (not the reactions).

66223[/snapback]

That’s what I would have assumed, but I didn’t want to put words in your mouth.

 

The quantum effects leading to mutual repulsion and the creation of energy in inflationary theory do not require causation.

66223[/snapback]

That is incorrect, because you are speaking of something that requires “causation†(see cause and effect). You can get caught up in that tautology if you wish, but it will be totally exposed.

 

Also, your statement is self-refuting because you cannot say that one contingent item (energy) requires causation, while other contingent items (quantum effects and mutual repulsion) do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

66224[/snapback]

Because:

 

First – Neither you, nor anyone else has provided “direct evidence†of a reptile “evolving†into a bird. The only evidence provided has been presupposition and “a priori†faith statements. So a good start , would be for you to provide all of this “Direct Evidenceâ€ÂÂ!

 

Second – ALL life on Earth has “genetic relatedness†of some form or another. We humans have “genetic relatedness†to fruit flies and bananas; does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage?

 

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones. 

66224[/snapback]

So, paleontologists actually observed other claims “like reptiles evolving into birds†then? I’d really love to see the evidence of those observations.

 

The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

66224[/snapback]

The “TOE†doesn’t predict anything, evolutionists presuppose based upon “a priori†hypotheses, and then fluidly adjust their "predictions" as the wind blows (see punctuated equilibrium)! If this weren’t the case, you’d actually provide all of this “Direct Evidence†you’ve been claiming you have.

 

Instead, you just keep attempting to back up your "just so" statements with more "faith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

I'll use the usual evo cop out and say: It just a coincidence that they are genetic relatedness.

 

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones.  The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

66224[/snapback]

Yet they found T-rex blood. Guess that's a coincidence also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can it be a faith statement when it draws upon direct evidence?  You do not need to see a reptile turning into a bird to be persuaded by observation of genetic relatedness forming nested hierarchies.

I'll use the usual evo cop out and say: It just a coincidence that they are genetic relatedness.

 

The only presupposition paleontologists make is that lower specimins fossilized earlier that higher ones.  The TOE predicts when various lines should emerge across the geological column and no finding has yet falsified this.

66224[/snapback]

Yet they found T-rex blood. Guess that's a coincidence also?

66274[/snapback]

 

:mellow: Random Genetic Relativity!

 

The question then, becomes: When is a faith statement not a faith statement?

 

Answer: When the faithful deny that its a faith statement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet they found T-rex blood. Guess that's a coincidence also?

66274[/snapback]

Nah, it just proves that these tissues can last millions of years... the experimental data was wrong.

 

What? We shouldn't assume that experimental data is wrong? You want new experiments to disprove the old ones? Whatever for? :)

 

I'll use the usual evo cop out and say: It just a coincidence that they are genetic relatedness.

You mean like when "convergent evolution" gives unrelated animals the same trait with the same genetic code?

 

http://www.icr.org/article/dolphin-dna-ref...t-echolocation/

 

Oh yeah... coincidence. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, it just proves that these tissues can last millions of years... the experimental data was wrong.

 

What? We shouldn't assume that experimental data is wrong? You want new experiments to disprove the old ones? Whatever for?  :P

 

You mean like when "convergent evolution" gives unrelated animals the same trait with the same genetic code?

 

http://www.icr.org/article/dolphin-dna-ref...t-echolocation/

 

Oh yeah... coincidence. :mellow:

66283[/snapback]

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no actual “shared features†in a hypothesis (since a hypothesis is fictitious), and it wasn’t mama it was AFJ.

There are shared features between the various abiogenesis hypotheses (plural) which I initially outlined in response to Mama's post.

 

1- What guided the “First†molecule into existence in the first place (so it could self-replicate)?

No guidance, chance reactions due to energy from the Sun, building blocks in a fluid environment etc.

 

2- Where did the “First†molecule get the code to self-replicate?

The "code" is its inherent structure.

 

That is incorrect, because you are speaking of something that requires “causation†(see cause and effect). You can get caught up in that tautology if you wish, but it will be totally exposed.

 

Also, your statement is self-refuting because you cannot say that one contingent item (energy) requires causation, while other contingent items (quantum effects and mutual repulsion) do not.

66242[/snapback]

No, I'm stating that quantum effects do not require causation but that they cause energy and mutual repulsion.

 

The only evidence provided has been presupposition and “a priori†faith statements.  So a good start , would be for you to provide all of this “Direct Evidenceâ€ÂÂ!

 

You know the evidence - phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column - but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified.

 

ALL life on Earth has “genetic relatedness†of some form or another. We humans have  “genetic relatedness†to fruit flies and bananas; does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? 

Yes, not direct ancestors but distant relatives.

 

So, paleontologists actually observed other claims “like reptiles evolving into birds†then? I’d really love to see the evidence of those observations.

Don't know what you mean, plaeontologists unearth specimins and do not observe their appearance in layers earlier than they shoul be.

 

The “TOE†doesn’t predict anything, evolutionists presuppose based upon “a priori†hypotheses, and then fluidly adjust their "predictions" as the wind blows (see punctuated equilibrium)! 

66244[/snapback]

The phrase "the theory predicts" is a mainstay of scientific discourse. The TEO has been enriched by further discoveries: genetics, epigenesis etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are shared features between the various abiogenesis hypotheses (plural) which I initially outlined in response to Mama's post.

66315[/snapback]

You response was a direct reply to AFJ’s post (as I provided). You may want to go back and read it before you proceed.

 

 

No guidance, chance reactions due to energy from the Sun, building blocks in a fluid environment etc.

66315[/snapback]

The above is a faith statement, and nothing more unless you provide empiric evidence of life arising from inanimate matter in the “naturalistic†manner you suggest.

 

The "code" is its inherent structure.

66315[/snapback]

Again, another faith statement; and an illogical one at that. The question was “Where did the “First†molecule get the code to self-replicate?†You may want to look up the word “inherent†prior to replying.

 

 

No, I'm stating that quantum effects do not require causation but that they cause energy and mutual repulsion.

66315[/snapback]

If you are going to make a “factual†statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual†evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it soâ€ÂÂ. And your style of equivocation will not last long here.

 

You know the evidence – phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column -  but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified.

66315[/snapback]

All you are providing is opinion. If you are going to make a “factual†statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual†evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it soâ€ÂÂ. Again, your style of equivocation will not last long here.

 

 

Yes, not direct ancestors but distant relatives.

66315[/snapback]

You may want to read the forum rules one more time before you go off on dishonest rants like that.

 

 

All you’ve done so far is provided the opinions of others, and your faith in them. I’m still awaiting ANY evidence that you have claimed to posses. Is equivocation all you’re providing in this discussion? Dogmatic equivocation at that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You response was a direct reply to AFJ’s post (as I provided). You may want to go back and read it before you proceed.

I know who I have replied to, including yourself. I initially raised the abiogenesis hypotheses based on Mama's post (it wouldn't change what I have written based on who I was replying to).

 

The above is a faith statement, and nothing more unless you provide empiric evidence of life arising from inanimate matter in the “naturalistic†manner you suggest.

I have already stated that abiogenesis is as yet hypotheitical.

 

Again, another faith statement; and an illogical one at that. The question was “Where did the “First†molecule get the code to self-replicate?†You may want to look up the word “inherent†prior to replying.

 

I know what "inherent" means. The code is the structure of the first molecule.

 

If you are going to make a “factual†statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual†evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it soâ€ÂÂ. And your style of equivocation will not last long here.

All you are providing is opinion. If you are going to make a “factual†statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual†evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it soâ€ÂÂ. Again, your style of equivocation will not last long here.

Quantum mechanics is one of the most successfully predictive theories in science, do you really want me to provide evidence for it?

 

The "factual statement" I wrote: "You know the evidence – phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column - but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified." You have posted here for long enough, do you really want me to provide evidence that you are familiar with the argumnets for evolution?

 

Where and how have I equivocated? To equivocate is to fudge a definition. Accusing someone of equivocation is not some magic bullet you can use whenever you are not inclined to engage with what has been posted.

 

You may want to read the forum rules one more time before you go off on dishonest rants like that.

What rant? You asked me "does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? "

 

Is equivocation all you’re providing in this discussion?

66317[/snapback]

No, I've directly answered all your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know who I have replied to, including yourself.  I initially raised the abiogenesis hypotheses based on Mama's post (it wouldn't change what I have written based on who I was replying to).

I have already stated that abiogenesis is as yet hypotheitical.

I know what "inherent" means.  The code is the structure of the first molecule.

Quantum mechanics is one of the most successfully predictive theories in science, do you really want me to provide evidence for it?

 

The "factual statement" I wrote: "You know the evidence – phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column -  but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified."  You have posted here for long enough, do you really want me to provide evidence that you are familiar with the argumnets for evolution?

 

Where and how have I equivocated?  To equivocate is to fudge a definition.  Accusing someone of equivocation is not some magic bullet you can use whenever you are not inclined to engage with what has been posted.

What rant?  You asked me "does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? "

No, I've directly answered all your questions.

66325[/snapback]

So, you don't actually want to provide any evidence.... Very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean Macro evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via natural chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called evidences for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only Man would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called evolved animal achieving even ONE of the following;

 

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured A heavier than air craft that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea craft that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling craft that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile.

 

Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of Myth.

 

65422[/snapback]

Further Atheistic evolutionists have to deal with their logical (and scientific) morass of life from nonlife, and intelligence from non-intelligence. Both of which effect ALL evolution from an atheistic standpoint.

65558[/snapback]

To take this even a step further, if the atheist continue to "Dogmatically" support atheistic macro-evolution, even with its lack of foundational evidences (as per the OP), do they then fall within the religiosity (exacerbated by their illogical conundrum) as suggested in:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=4056

 

Why do we continue to see the "burdon shifting":

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=3059&st=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, my name is Jud.

 

I know I am not a part of the discussion at the moment, but I would like to share my opinion on the subject.

 

I have often asked myself this question: "If evolution is true, then why aren't we evolving into different creatures (physically speaking)?" I have never actually sought a legitimate explanation for this question, until now.

 

The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago.

-Tkubok (last post)

 

When I read this statement, I felt myself nodding my head in agreement. I don't believe we are evolving. I believe that if evolution were true, we would be evolving into different sorts of creatures.

 

You might say that we don't see the changes because they are very gradual, but humans have been in existence for at least 6000 years (even longer if you believe in evolution), and no physical changes have been recorded. Our minds haven't changed, our bodies haven't grown new organs, or new fingers and toes. As Tkubok said, I don't believe the mind has changed. Humans have gained knowledge, yet we stil do stupid things, for example, we smoke and take harmful drugs. If our minds are evolving then why do humans still attack one another, and wrestle with the issues of the world? If we have evolved from monkeys, then our brains have evolved from their brains. There is a big difference between both brains, and if evolution is true we should expect our brains to be more evolved and more capable than the earlier human race's brains. If our brains were still evolving we would have solved some of the problems that the world faces right now. We would have, achieved some sort of peace, but instead we have more conflicts going on in the world than ever before. Has evolution just stopped for humans?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you believe humans are adapting or evolving or not, i'd say the evidence shows we are, and have, even during those last 6,000 years

 

Here's a good example, as we all know Ron in particular likes empirical examples

Evolution of lactose digestion. I expect you can digest milk like I can. All children can, but not all adults can.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html

 

I'd say differences in human height, skin colar and skin pigmentation have all showed adaptation, and dare i say, evolution.

Many aspects of modern human adaptation (during the last 6000 ears) are driven by parasites and bacteria.

I'd say you've got a decent chance to survive a new outbreak of Black Death or Bubonic Plague because your ancestors did.

Same with modern humans on Carribean/South Pacific islands, would stand a good chance to survive small pox, because

their ancestors did, since living small pox carrying Westerners reached their islands and spread the disease that decimated populations.

 

Take a look at this with malaria

http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

 

It is very difficult to say how the power of the human mind has adapted or evolved over the last 6,000. But it has been quantified

by looking at the complexity of human drawings, from basic outlines of hunt animals on cave walls with square bodies and stick legs

towards shaded toned skillful depictions of horses in fluid motion galloping through rivers..

 

And yes, in the current age when its often the parents with below average intelligence who have the most children, while highly

intelligent and well educated ones have few, then that maybe does indicate there is now little selection pressure that might favour

continued intellectual growth/development in future humankind. Those with many children pass their characteristics onto subsequent

generations in greater numbers than those that have fewer children.

 

There was an odd but rather watchable film...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you believe humans are adapting or evolving or not, i'd say the evidence shows we are, and have, even during those last 6,000 years

 

The word “believe†is very important in the above sentence, AND the following sequences in sjl197’s line of reasoning. What I might point out as well, is that the conversion by definition that is going on shows the blatant prejudices/biases and (once again) massive amounts of faith promulgated by the evolutionists world-view. The implications pushed by the evolutionists are that adaptation + millions of years = macroevolution (an unproven concept). So sjl197 is firstly attempting to establish short term evidences of adaptation. But, he forgets… No one is arguing against “adaptationâ€ÂÂ, because we can prove “adaptation†empirically! But, what is killing his hypothesis, is that he has totally failed to provide a causal connection between “adaptation†and his end-game (or ultimate goal) of macroevolution. But the evolutionist WILL defend his faith in macroevolution dogmatically, and with fervency!

 

 

Here's a good example, as we all know Ron in particular likes empirical examples

Evolution of lactose digestion. I expect you can digest milk like I can. All children can, but not all adults can.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html

 

As far as the “empirical evidence†goes, we have ALWAYS (historically) had the ability to digest lactose; infants through adulthood (with the exception of the lactose intolerant). But, even if we didn’t, these adaptive abilities in no way “empirically†prove macroevolution; it only “empirically†proves “adaptability!

 

But, what assumptions really stand out in the opinions propagated in the linked article:

 

First - The assumption that humans haven’t always used lactose for milks, cheeses and other food stuffs.

Second - The assumption for when humans first started herding cattle (cows, goats, sheep, etc…). For example; the gaps in their estimates are huge “The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimatesâ€ÂÂ.. Yet evolutionists like sjl197 wants to emply a certain amount of certitude in such suggestions.

Third – There is no reason to believe that that which is “switched offâ€ÂÂ, cannot be “switched on†again.

 

 

I'd say differences in human height, skin colar and skin pigmentation have all showed adaptation, and dare i say, evolution.

Many aspects of modern human adaptation (during the last 6000 ears) are driven by parasites and bacteria.

 

Once again, the suggestion that the adaptation within “human height, skin color and skin pigmentation†+ millions of years = Macroevolution is nowhere proven in the above statement; empirically or otherwise. It is nothing more than mere opinion.

 

 

I'd say you've got a decent chance to survive a new outbreak of Black Death or Bubonic Plague because your ancestors did.

Same with modern humans on Carribean/South Pacific islands, would stand a good chance to survive small pox, because

their ancestors did, since living small pox carrying Westerners reached their islands and spread the disease that decimated populations.

 

Take a look at this with malaria

http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

 

Once again, the suggestion that the adaptation within “disease survival via immunity†+ millions of years = Macroevolution is nowhere proven in the above statement; empirically or otherwise. It is nothing more than mere opinion.

I could go on pointing out the rest of the red herring below, but I have other things to do right now… If I really have to, I’ll come back and do so.

 

But, suffice it to say, as I pointed out in my opening statement; sjl197 “has totally failed to provide a causal connection between “adaptation†and his end-game (or ultimate goal) of macroevolutionâ€ÂÂ, but he will religiously defend his faith in evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms