Quote:
|
Originally Posted by killernoodle
In order for the evolution to take place, there first must be a mutation that provides a benefit. If this mutation enhances the creature's ability to survive and reproduce (and if the mutated gene is not recessive) it's offspring will have this trait. Most animals that may sprout a few extra limbs do not do very well at all in their environments and are usually killed off quickly.
|
In order for an arm to grow from a fish (one of the basic steps in the evolutionary theory of man) there would be many thousands and thousands (millions) of years of transition period of complete uselessness for that trait. For example a dog from its legless predecessor. 4 limbs being nubs, each having 1000's of useless mutations to provide for bone size, muscular attachment, claws, and ultimate design enabling efficient running. Each thousand years having its own fossil evidence.
Who can argue evolution? When I see the transitional models in not 1 or 2 species, but in EVERY aspect of life as the THEORY describes with corresponding empirical evidence, I will subscribe to it. I find it amusing that the scientific 'open' mind has to dismiss such illogical gaps, placing their 1 or 2 'missing links' that allow them to explain an entire process across all living species. One, two or even 100 would be a vastly insignificant amount of fossils to explain an origination of all life theory.
If we have fossils of anything that shows conformity from 'millions' of years ago in any species, doesn't this in itself raise a question with the evolutionary mind? Should we statistically NEVER be able to find a common model of a dinosaur or early predecessor that would have all common points or structure if they were constantly in an evolving state? How can we find remotely similar animal fossils on separate continents in differing environments without each taking a different provable fossil record as they evolve differently?
Today an evolutionist to me seems to be the equivalent of yesterdays 'flat world' theorist. In a hypothesis, if the basic concept is proven wrong, you must reject the hypothesis as false. You cannot 'prove' a theory, only disprove it. However, in this field, you have scientists attempting to prove their hypothesis right and ignoring all past failures or rejected 'evidence' without coming to a point of re-writing the basic hypothesis.
I personally cannot grasp the faith that it takes an evolutionist (spoken as classified as some kind of religion) to justify their belief. Without arguing the abstract petty arguments, the 10 thousand pound elephant that is ignored is the loss of the millions of transitory fossils that MUST outnumber the 'final stage' bones.
In a similar argument, how many millions of favorable mutations across the biological board must occur daily in our living ecosystem and be successfully passed on genetically via a mate? Shouldn’t we see these daily to keep the pace of constant evolution is to be maintained?
I have faith in intelligent design as I admit to seeing the HUGE gaps in the evolutionary model. I have studied both. I can not see how one takes more faith than the others personally.
I don't deny that some points of evolution regarding 1, or even two species may be valid. Wouldn't a scientific minded person have to have it proved across the board to subscribe to an all encompassing working model?
On thread topic, I would think that the model would result in all forms of life evolving higher thought patterns, and ending up as the worlds most sucessful and destructive stage of evolution being .. man. And of course, all women would end up having those lips.