Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
My questions for an 'evolutionist'
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="liftmeup" data-source="post: 62238176" data-attributes="member: 243057"><p>I am asking about Darwinian evolution here, as decribed in 'On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection'.</p><p></p><p>1. Why have humans got superintelligence? </p><p></p><p>I know that you probably know a few people who don't match this category, but in general, the human intellect is one far removed from any other organism. Language seems to be the significant starter. Man has 'the word'. No other creature in the world has this one trait.</p><p></p><p>I was taught that natural selection pares away all that is unnecessary or a hindrance to survival and favors genes <em>necessary</em> for survival. The 'matter of life and death' imperative is at all times the genetic selector in nature. Therefore I postulate upon a human ape ancestor (before it had the word). This ape ancestor was surviving ok as it was, so what on earth could have happened to bring 'the word' into its genome as a <em>requirement</em> for its survival? Plenty of animals have rudimentary forms of language but none has obviously needed 'the word' to live. The world is clearly not that demanding.</p><p></p><p>2. Can a more complex genome arise from a simpler one?</p><p></p><p>Dawkins was asked this question but couldn't answer. See:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins Owned, Note he did not answer the question - YouTube</a></p><p></p><p>He states that modern creatures are not the same as the 'ancestors' that were around millions of years ago. So...</p><p></p><p>3. Why hasn't the coelocanth changed? </p><p></p><p>This fish exists in the fossil record and is aged at 400 million years. It was assumed (wrongly) to have gone extinct 65 million years ago in the time of the dinosaurs, and yet still lives in the Caribbean and in the Indian ocean. It is considered a 'living fossil'. How can a genus like this stand genetically still, all this time, when science teaches that constant evolutionary pressures have brought about all the other 'modern' creatures we see today?</p><p></p><p>4. Has the process of speciation been adequately evidenced?</p><p></p><p>That being, the divergence of one species into two with a solid genetic barrier between them that does not permit hybrids? Ring species such as Larus appear to be false examples and form a genetically-complex superspecies group (Liebers, 2004). Similarly the Galapagos finches all hybridize easily.</p><p></p><p>5. By what means can an evolutionary process of natural selection contribute to the mutation of the inanimate, gene-less substrates of 4 billion years ago, into the semblances of living cells? </p><p></p><p>It seems to me at this point that it cannot. Clay, being inanimate has no imperative to survive, therefore no mechanism by which to improve itself.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="liftmeup, post: 62238176, member: 243057"] I am asking about Darwinian evolution here, as decribed in 'On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection'. 1. Why have humans got superintelligence? I know that you probably know a few people who don't match this category, but in general, the human intellect is one far removed from any other organism. Language seems to be the significant starter. Man has 'the word'. No other creature in the world has this one trait. I was taught that natural selection pares away all that is unnecessary or a hindrance to survival and favors genes [I]necessary[/I] for survival. The 'matter of life and death' imperative is at all times the genetic selector in nature. Therefore I postulate upon a human ape ancestor (before it had the word). This ape ancestor was surviving ok as it was, so what on earth could have happened to bring 'the word' into its genome as a [I]requirement[/I] for its survival? Plenty of animals have rudimentary forms of language but none has obviously needed 'the word' to live. The world is clearly not that demanding. 2. Can a more complex genome arise from a simpler one? Dawkins was asked this question but couldn't answer. See: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28]Richard Dawkins Owned, Note he did not answer the question - YouTube[/url] He states that modern creatures are not the same as the 'ancestors' that were around millions of years ago. So... 3. Why hasn't the coelocanth changed? This fish exists in the fossil record and is aged at 400 million years. It was assumed (wrongly) to have gone extinct 65 million years ago in the time of the dinosaurs, and yet still lives in the Caribbean and in the Indian ocean. It is considered a 'living fossil'. How can a genus like this stand genetically still, all this time, when science teaches that constant evolutionary pressures have brought about all the other 'modern' creatures we see today? 4. Has the process of speciation been adequately evidenced? That being, the divergence of one species into two with a solid genetic barrier between them that does not permit hybrids? Ring species such as Larus appear to be false examples and form a genetically-complex superspecies group (Liebers, 2004). Similarly the Galapagos finches all hybridize easily. 5. By what means can an evolutionary process of natural selection contribute to the mutation of the inanimate, gene-less substrates of 4 billion years ago, into the semblances of living cells? It seems to me at this point that it cannot. Clay, being inanimate has no imperative to survive, therefore no mechanism by which to improve itself. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
My questions for an 'evolutionist'
Top
Bottom