TE (Theistic Evolution) does not make sense because human is not evolved from animal.
(Are you an animal? Surprisingly, many many people will answer: YES !)
Surprisingly
Could you cite me a reference which describe the change of a single-cell life to a multiple-cell life in a lab setting? I like to see it.
I'm pretty sure I've given it already, since I pull it out all the time. Nevertheless,
here it is again. (Also, I found
this while googling up that paper. Just one reason not everyone goes multicellular
)
The nature seldom makes any clear-cut thing. The trend you described is what a trend should look like. However, evolution process should not make any preferred statistics through a long time.
Why?
If evolution can
randomly add or remove complexity with equal chance, and it starts from low complexity, I'm pretty sure you still get an overall trend of increasing complexity in the long term simply because of your starting point. Wait, I'll try to simulate this...
*codes*
Here:
Explanation (R code, of course, available on request
):
My simulation took 1000 lineages whose overall complexities were represented by a whole number between 0 and 20. The lower limit is for obvious reasons - "life" can't exist under a certain level of complexity. (I introduced a ceiling mainly to make a point, read on) I gave each lineage the same starting complexity for simplicity's sake. I'm pretty sure I could have randomised the starting values and got largely the same results, though. I also didn't incorporate speciation and extinction.
For 1000 "generations", I randomly decided whether the complexity of each lineage would increase by one unit, decrease by one unit or remain the same in that generation. If the complexity of any lineage would have gone outside the limits I specified, I told the program to leave it the same for that generation.
Every generation, I recorded the mean complexity of the 1000 lineages.
Finally, I ran this program with four different starting values and plotted the results as mean complexity against time (generations).
As you can see, no matter where you start, complexity converges to a certain value (in this case, the middle of the range of possible values). So
if you start with low complexity, it will increase, and if you start with high complexity, it will decrease. The direction of the trend depends on the starting point. That's why I put in an upper limit: to illustrate
why you should expect an increase in real evolution. It's simply because real evolution started simple! I'm not sure if there is an actual upper limit to the complexity of living things, though I imagine there must be one somewhere.
All of this involves
no selection whatsoever. (Other than my minimum and maximum values)
So yes, juvenissun, evolution most definitely should produce trends.
*Assuming I didn't mess up my code, of course
You have a major contradiction right there.
Not unless you give me more than a mere declaration of "should not".
Fine, evolution is not proven. I am with you on that.
Hope your comrades will agree with you.
They do. They are also aware of the difference between "not proven" and "false".
And also, most i picked up from science class, wasn't worth knowing about, so i decided to forget about it... Hence my ignorance!1
Someone really mucked up your science education, I must say.
YOU !! are an animal. I am a human.
*rolleyes*
Which defining property of animals do you think you lack?
And what's so shameful about being an animal, anyway?