- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Bajau: natural selection at work
Curiously, only one creationist responded in that thread and he didn't even address the topic.
Complexity isn't an indicator of design at all.
Case in point: I can "design" a hammer, which is just a chipped rock.
A hurricane, is a lot more complex then that. The chipped rock was "designed", the hurricane wasn't.
So there you go: a simple thing that was designed, and a vastly more complex thing that wasn't.
This proves that "complexity" isn't an indicator of design.
Furthermore, there's no unit of "complexity".
Epigenetics at work.
I see design in the hands (and all the other parts) that chipped the rock into a hammer.
Wow...When I think of evolution I envision one creature becoming an entirely different creature, not mutation or adaptation. Heck, I adapt to the cold each winter and to the heat every summer. That's just a design feature, like becoming fat if you overeat.
Of course there is design, but science can't make the leap from design to designer, therefore there is no 'design'. I understand that.
Yeah, a computer that was clearly designed, but the human body wasn't when it's vastly more complex? Complexity speaks of design more than it just 'happened'.
I'm sure that your take on epigenetics will be as interesting as your take on the aorta sending signals to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve...Epigenetics at work.
If by "epigenetics", you mean "evolution by natural selection", then sure.
Is there evidence of recent human evolution?
Yeah, a computer that was clearly designed, but the human body wasn't when it's vastly more complex? Complexity speaks of design more than it just 'happened'.
The size of human spleens varies randomly from individual to individual, and that variation can be inherited. That is, humans with larger spleens tend to have children with larger spleens. If having a larger spleen turns out to be a survival advantage, then those individuals with larger spleens will tend to reproduce more successfully than those with smaller spleens and the larger-spleened individuals will gradually account for more and more of the population.I mean changes in genetics brought on by behaviors. Would the Bajue divers have larger spleens if they hadn't been deep diving for generations, or would mountain dwellers have greater lung capacity if they hadn't lived at high altitudes for generations? I don't see 'selection' here, just adaptation.
The size of human spleens varies randomly from individual to individual, and that variation can be inherited. That is, humans with larger spleens tend to have children with larger spleens. If having a larger spleen turns out to be a survival advantage, then those individuals with larger spleens will tend to reproduce more successfully than those with smaller spleens and the larger-spleened individuals will gradually account for more and more of the population.
1. Random variation of spleen size, plus
2. Natural selection of larger-spleened individuals equals
3. Evolution by random variation and natural selection.
I was just pointing out to you how natural selection works in the example that you gave.But the spleen remains a spleen doesn't it? I don't equate a slightly larger size spleen as evidence of evolution, just a small difference that gives some individuals a certain advantage, if they discover it at all. It would interesting to know how many people have large spleens that don't even know how to swim.
Are you saying that we are descendants of the Romans?
So we didn't evolve from a totally different creature, or that acclimatization isn't due to evolution?
@OldWiseGuy
If I saw someone walking in the snow, and I only watched them walk for a few seconds, I would see that they only traveled a few feet.
Your question of if there is evidence of recent evolution, is like asking if there is evidence that this person recently moved from point A to point B in the snow.
People are responding by saying, well yes there is evidence, watch his legs move. And you are responding by saying "well this isnt evidence that they walked from point A to point B, its just evidence that theyre moving a little bit".
But of course if you only looked at the person for a few seconds, of course you would only see them move a little bit.
You wouldnt see them move 20 feet in a few seconds because evolution and walking are slow processes. You wouldnt see the man standing still, nor would you see a stasis of mutations or biological change, because evolution is ongoing. It doesn't stop.
So, what we see with spleens changing in size, even if its just a little bit, is exactly what we ought to see, if evolution were true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?