Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Everyone else seems to have inexplicably failed to snap down on Dr. Feel Good after he asserted that humans aren't born with six fingers/toes.

Hexadactyly is a real medical condition. It's not the most common thing in the world, but it does indeed occur. There are several types, distinguished by the location, symmetry, and and condition of the extra digit(s).

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticleKey=7756

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic

Yes...this is a point that is made many times here (even though it is not a scientific argument). Your qualification of 'science' needs to be modified.

Evolution is not simply history. Rather, its an attempt to understand the events in history using known physical and chemical laws and principles. We take science as we have formulated it today, and we make the assumption that the science was the same throughout history. In other words we try to answer this question: What happened and how did that happen? History is simply half of the question...evolution is *both halves* (and the 'how' must be answered by adhering to the scientific method). So if we could demonstrate that 'reptile-bird' could have occured under the laws of nature as we understand them (in the lab as you put it), then it would amount to powerful evidence indeed that evolution is correct.

The problem with creationists is that all they seem able to do is ask questions and point to the 'black boxes', etc. What they consistently fail to do is offer any scientific answer to the question: How did it happen? ID, IC and such are simply questions...they don't bring any new science to the table.

If there is a plausible scientific alternative to evolutionary theory on the origin of the species then please share it with us bevets, thats what this forum is all about. For now, evolution stands alone as the only plausible theory we have on the origins of the species.

Many creationists would like to deny scientists their work...just accept that the species popped in out of thin air about 6500 years ago (or at some earlier time according to OEC)....but no scientist could possibly accept this. Think of it like this: they are studying the power of God in His Creation...what's wrong with that?

Actually, the idea is there, and the logic is there. Remove the six digits if you want. It does not invalidate the argument that there is a mechanism in place to limit speciation, although malfunctions do occur. Please note that the 6th digit, or a tail in another example, is an example of a malfunction of the system, not born from necessity to survive. It never represents an advantage to the species, it does not create a new species, nor is it exactly common. Also, provide evidence that a parent with 6 digits gives birth to offspring with 6 digits. Or a someone born with a "tail" giving birth to someone with a "tail".

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again, can you please start a new thread and show us this system that limits speciation?

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

I am afraid that thread is one if aI did open thre books & start would be one you would never visit; besides there are tonsd of them out there, if Hovind is too much for u ther try ICR or many of the other links. Jesus is coming soon better be ready!

<shrug>

Ever seen speciation in humans? Perhaps a better example?

Well, you can't evolve sin...

But emotions are easy. That's called Evolutionary Psychology. Basically, what emotions are evolutionarily advantageous? An overwhelming feeling of love for one's own offspring, the absolute drive to gain food and sex, etc, etc, etc.

I mean, afterall, what sort of created being would have a genetic necessity to spread our seed? HMM?

__________________
Bushido216

Let's see this "mechanism." This should be interesting.
So why did you even bring it up?
Technically, we all have tails - as embryos. An embryonic tail is one of the distinguishing features of Phylum Chordata. Usually, the notochord that comprises the embryonic tail is absorbed in utero (some of which is used to make the intervertebral discs), but occasionally it manifests at birth.

Right, because none of us have ever encountered the pseudoscience from the ICR. You just keep telling yourself that.
Well, are you going to listen to him when he tells you evolution is true?

Remember, I'm not as smart as some of the others around here, but I'll attempt to reply as best I can...


You're assuming that mutations are there for the sole purpose of being advantageous to the species. That is not true. A mutation is a mutation, just that. However, there are some mutations which are more advantageous than others, and those ensure the bearer of such a mutation to a better chance of spreading that mutation. Therefore, the mutation spreads throughout the entire population. Remember, an advantageous mutation is a mutation that allows the bearer to beat the pressures put on him by his environment. For instance, prey animals have eyes on the sides of their head, so that they can see farther around, while hunting animals have both their eyes in the front of their head, allowing them depth perception (unless you have Double Vision, like me, my right eye points in a touch). Why do we not see the bad mutations repeating? Because those who are unfortunate enough to bear those bad mutations are much more easily killed off, not allowing them to spread that mutation.


As well, the mutated gene may or may not be a dominant one. In the case of the unfortunate boy with a tail, if he were to reproduce, it may or may not show up in his children. Infact, it probably won't.


Also, a point on speciation. You're assuming that speciation occurs within a single population group. That's incorrect. There are kinda two kinds. For instance, a population in the same area might experience a mutation being spread through the population. Because they all share the same pressures, the same mutations are good and bad. So they will speciate, but since there is no pre-species in which to compare, we cannot test the fact that they are reproductively isolated.


As with the chimps and the humans, a group of chimps moved away from the main body, so they were under different pressures than the main-body chimpanzees. So, they, as a collective, underwent a series of Micro-Evolutions, that culminated in them being reproductively isolated. You're failing to grasp that a long chain of Micro-Evolutions will lead to speciation, or Macro-Evolution, and that Macro-Evolution is simply a nice way of bundling up a series of observed Micro-Evolutions in a definable chain. A simple way of classifying a series of Micro-Evolutions.


I hope I was clear.

The following is part of my edit:

I figured that you might go slack-jawed at the likelihood of a series of random mutations not only being beneficial, but dominant. However, think of it like the system that drives enzyme reactions, kinetic energy. Now, I'm assuming that you accept the theory that the more energy you put into a enzyme / substrate system, the more they'll do, since the more energy the two have, the more likely that the proper enzyme will hit the proper substrate. It's completely random, and yet it works.

It's the same thing with populations. The chances are, indeed, slim, but given large populations and millions of years, wonderful things can happen.

__________________
Bushido216