Dare To Look At Your Gene Pool?

I like this cartoon!
Attached Images
cartoon.gif (3.9 KB, 3 views)
Quote: Originally Posted by humanbeingView Post

What holes are there in evolution? That goes out to both the Scotian and to Matt, since you both seem to figure there are holes. I'd like to know, because if there are really holes, we need to refine or toss away this grand theory post haste.

I dunno about creation theory though, I wouldn't jump on that train so quickly just because you figure there are holes in evolution. First one would have to show me the holes in evolution, and then one would have to show me there aren't holes in creation... big giant crater-sized holes at that!

I know why, just to get a rise out of people, eh? Right on, my friend!

In the spirit of that attitude, I would like you to peruse the contents of this website:

whywontgodhealamputees.com/ (external - login to view)

Actully I know evolution theroy well from Biolgy...As for getting a rise out of people its flawwed. Explain the Monkey to man theroy...it doesnt float...but please humor me.

Iam Actully a Christian..I beleave in some evolution through creation.
I believe that most things evolved through creation. But not in a religious way. Same as I mentioned about interbreeding of humans earlier, I think that species did interbreed to create new ones, some worked, some didn't. The ones that worked survive through "natural selection" the ones that didn't died.

I believe (but would need to check somewhere) that if you breed a horse with a donkey, you get a mule. BUT, the horse and donkey have different numbers of chromosones (Donkey 26 and Horse 28 or something like that), meaning that the mule has an ODD number of chromosomes (27), do its cant breed again (cant split 27 chromosomes in half). This is an example of "failed" 'cross-breeding eveolution'.
I'll start with Matt's first post first and I'll humour EastSide later on if I feel up to it...

Quote: Originally Posted by MattUK

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

  1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
  2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

1. This is not a weakness of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not apply to the spoon I am currently eating soup with, so why would it apply to other similarly lifeless, inert things?

One does not need to jump to the conclusion that we were created by a godlike entity and that evolution is flawed just because we haven't exactly figured out the origin of life - to do that in itself, one needs proof.

For an interesting read, check out the Origin of life article on Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life (external - login to view). People are working on these problems right now, though the progress is relatively slow. As more minds press the issue, and technology increases, I have no doubts we will figure this thing out. It's neat where some people figure evolution begins: before life as we know it. Read the article for yourself for some really cool ideas...

2. The fossil record is not our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred during the past. The fossil record in itself is merely the cherry on top - that's all. We could be without the entire fossil record and there would still be overwhelming amounts of evidence in favour of evolution. At the same time, the fossil record does nothing to disprove evolution. It's just a bonus for evolutionary biology.

Remember that at any given time and place, the conditions may not be right for an organism to leave behind a fossil. Relatively few organisms leave behind fossils.

Also, the very idea of a species can often be misleading. In terms of sexual creatures like ourselves, species are generally understood as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations (external - login to view) which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Keep that in mind and maybe read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution (external - login to view). The difference between you & I, and an early homo erectus are very clear, but the line blurs between an early human and a late erectus, to the point that the line pretty much isn't there. When is it one species, when is it the other, when do we give it its own name and call it its own species, when do we label it an 'intermediate species'? I figure that might be where some of the, what you call 'dubious evidence', comes from.

As to the types of evidence we have for evolution, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...e_of_evolution (external - login to view). I could basically repeat it here, but that would be pointless when it is already there. It's only several paragraphs long, so it does not take long to read. If you need specific cases for evidence after reading that article and maybe following through on a few obvious sources, I will be happy to find some for you. The point is, we don't just collect fossils, we analyze DNA and other molecules, among other things, and these sources provide us with vastly more than fossils ever could.
Last edited by humanbeing; Oct 6th, 2006 at 05:04 PM..
i kno i'm half swedish
Quote: Originally Posted by MissAnnikaView Post

i kno i'm half swedish

Scottish. Lauder clan. South east coast of Scotland.

Similar Threads

Japanese Wave Pool
by Twila | Aug 19th, 2007
CanadianContent NHL Playoff Pool
by Kreskin | Jun 2nd, 2006
no new posts