|
|
|
| Durza wrote: | 1. What I meant by scientific study, was my reading of others scientific study.
2. And the idea to replace evolution, was, creationism, although not all were, and while you may say this effects my view, it is miniscule.
3. And anyway, if evolution was true, why are there no intermediate fossils in the fossil record?
4. And don't you think that, if evolution is true, that there would be many more odd species?
5. And if evolution is true, it would have taken so long for an ape (or any other species no matter how close it had been to humanity) to evolve into a human (And for all the genetics to fit EXACTLY right, an completely by chance, this would take an almost INFINITE amount time) EVERY bone (yes, lucy and ardi) would be dust? And even darwin tried to disprove his theory, MORE than prove it.
P.S. Thank you for finding my fault, so that I could refine my argument. |
I put spacing and numbering into your post to make it easier to respond to.
1. Reading about other people's research is not research. Darwin spent most of his life developing and improving the Theory of Evolution and you intend to equivalate this with high school science classes?
2. Creationism is a religious idea, not a scientific idea, and does not provide a reasonable alternative to evolution.
3. Fossilisation is rare process, the majority of dead organisms are broken down by consumers and reprocessed into new living things. That is why there are few, not no, intermediate fossils in the fossil record. Besideswhich, even a complete absence of intermediate fossils still shows gradual change in the aspects of living creatures.
4. What do you mean odd species? There are no odd species, only different species. Your narrow definition of odd doesn't apply to science, science doesn't measure the abnormality of living things, abnormality is subjective.
5. Because changes are gradual, not "I don't like this climate, I'm going to lose some hair." Only minute changes occur generation to generation and the majority of mutations in organisms are cancers, evolution is a long, complex and rare process that can only be viewed on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years at the smallest.
You seem to think that evolution occurs by chance, it doesn't. When a species is faced with an environmental problem, whether it is their internal or external environment, they adapt to the conditions that they are faced with. If an animal has a great deal of hair to keep them warm in a cold climate and the climate starts to get warmer, they gradually grow less hair as each generation goes by. Other mutations may occur, but species only keep the ones that are helpful, except in the case of recessive genes.
So, the reason it is believable for our genetics to be similar (not identical, if you think monkey and human genes are identical, your knowledge of evolution is even more lacking than I had previously believed) to monkeys, is that it doesn't occur by chance, it happens because it is useful for it to happen. The only way that creationism could be true is if the Earth's environment has never changed, when, in fact, we know that Antarctica was once free of ice, there was once a dust winter caused by a massive asteroid striking the Earth, and most dramatically of all, every singe continent on the Earth was once joined as one. Creationism is impossible because without evolution, no animals would be alive in Antarctica, no animals would have survived the dust winter and all life on Earth would have been killed by the seperation of Pangaea.
As for whatever you're saying about dust, reiterate your argument more clearly and I'll deconstruct that too.
EDIT: GAH, what happened to my code?
DOUBLE EDIT: Thanks, Marix.
_________________
If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.
Last edited by High Mage Serratus on Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
]]
