進化論的疑問
| « 1 | < | > | 2 » |
dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19 While you are on your Evolution 101 course , you forget about the Logic 101. You can get rich by winning a lottery, but buying a lottery does not necessary make you rich. Evolution may start with mutation but not all mutation would lead to species evolution. Mutation will not make a fish to become a dog. Evolution is big change in phenotype. | |||||
回復 抽刀斷水 If that is the reason, I rather prefer to evolve to have one more pair of limbs so that I can flee faster from enemy or to chase my brunch. | |||||
Evolution is about genes, not individuals. So no YOU cannot evolve to have an extra pair of limbs. The side qestion is even if you have an extra pair of limbs, is it worth? It is survival of the fittest, not the faster, not the strongest, not even most wise. A lot of successful animals in the world simply survive by reproducing extremely fast. | |||||
For example, H. neanderthalensis | |||||
Not every feature of evolution is make a species better at adapting to the environment. It only need to be "fit" in the sense that it will transfer to the next generation. Adapting to the environment is only one of the criteria. Other criteria, for example a) Like the tail of peacock, to attract mates! In fact, it is thoerize the reason human brain get so large is because of this reason. People with higher mental capability (not exactly wise) is "sexy". As for the reason why peacock use its tail, it is way of signalling to female about its health, reasourcefulness, etc Besides tails, birds dance, sing, build nests, too! b) Junk DNA, copying for the sake of copying. As long as it do enough harm. Most of DNA is just, junk. c) DNA that causes aging, old age disease. People (in old days) reproduce when they are young! So anything that has a harmful effect when you are old will have not much evolutionary pressure to be removed! And you wonder why people's health goes downhill quickly after they pass their reproductive age (like after 30). ---------- I think talking to you is a waste of time. Other who are interest can read the page and decide for themselves. | |||||
A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation. I dont know how much time you would think is enough for living species to evolve. On my example above, the fern kept its structure and shape for 300 million years with no significant changes. Do you think the evolution of species from a single cell to the complex live species we see on earth today can be completed within the earth's history of 4.5 billion years? If that is the case, some species must have evoloved in fanstatic speed,like this: | |||||
回復 beebeechan If you feel you cannot convince me with your stupid arguments, then you are free to go. You are never on the hook. As long as you stop sending out bullshits, things gonna get quiet and peaceful here. I forgot......you are welcome to come back with your Evolution 303! | |||||
回復 beebeechan You just called them junks simple because you have no idea what these DNA sequences are for? | |||||
A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation. Least you forget, dogs are evolved from wolf. Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man. We know that a 200 base pairs changes would make the son look very different from his parents. We don't see any of this happening today. I don't know how many base pairs have to change in each generation for a fish to become a dog, and this must be completed within 4.5 billion years. | |||||
Evolutionists say that homo sapiens and apes have common ancestor because their DNA is 90% identical. Well, they do not take into account the 90% so called "junk DNA" in the whole DNA sequence which human being at this stage has no idea what they mean. In that case, the claim that "they have a common ancestor because of the 90% DNA matches" is just bullshit!! You have no idea the rest of the ＂Ｙes, just junk DNA" sequences (90% of the total) are doing! "You don't know" does not mean they are functionless and play no part at all. | |||||
回復 beebeechan How do you know the Neanderthals were as wise as homo sapiens? Did you perform an IQ test on a living Neanderthal? | |||||
As evolutionists said, on the evolution tree, there must be at one time, fish and canine have a common ancestor. |
| « 1 | < | > | 2 » |