Posted on 05/17/2007 9:02:34 AM PDT by Sopater
“I might be sorry I asked, but to you care to expand upon this premise?”
LOL! I’m envisioning Archie Bunker in his chair smoking a cigar talking with “Meat Head” :
“Well, Whitey ya see - he’s on top,....”
It wasn’t a scientific statement, nor perfectly accurate. What I mean is that typical examples of human evolutionary “progress” given do not manifest themselves in the entire population of humanity.
Things which are obviously improvements don’t wipe out the population of those without the improvements, and things that are obviously traits that make us weaker have not disappeared from our genetic pool.
Once you get past the historically documented history, we have speculation about things that have changed, but that’s what we are arguing about (like did we use to have tails). What I’m saying is if you look at the documented historical life of humanity, over the few thousands of years we have a reasonable understanding of our history, we still see today living examples of “humans” from the various “evolutionary” forms humans have taken that are clearly examples of how mutations can be selected and lead to “evolution”.
If I try specific examples I might get laughed at, but I don’t care, I’ll go ahead anyway. Like people are getting taller, but there are still lots of short people, there’s even a show about “little people” on TV.
Like aborigines and other populations of humans found that are clearly less “evolved” than “modern” man.
Like hair.
Read up on speciation. I don’t have time to write you a primer on evolutionary genetics.
Obviously you haven't seen the movie, "Idiocracy."
I apologize for underestimating you.
“Ever notice how many people need glasses to correct their vision?
Poor eyesight does not inhibit reproduction. It may even assist it!
Nothing's missing. Translocations are a common cause of infertility, but non-lethal ones can be inherited. All it takes is one breeding pair whose translocations happen to be incompatible with the genome of most members of their species, but compatible with each other's, and you'll start getting perfectly fertile offspring who are only fertile within the subgroup carrying these translocations (i.e. produce no offspring or sterile offspring if they mate with members of the original population). Presto! One species has become two.
As does beer.
Accepted. I agree with you that we cannot have an intelligent debate if we don’t listen to the opposition.
Unfortunately, you’re statement was a pretty safe bet for either side of the aisle. All too often people don’t even consider what the other has to say, and have already made up their minds.
And which conveys a competitive advantage, or at least isn't a disadvantage...or your new species will get eaten by a predator or otherwise outcompeted within a short while, and that's the end of the new species.
LOL!
People often use the concepts of scientific method to define science. This is where they are just not correct. Science is knowledge which is truth. There are places where you simply can't know the truth you can only try to make a legal case. Origin is the perfect example.
Suppose God made Adam and you are there with all of your instruments of measurement. You can conclude that Adam is a human and currently alive but you can not determine how he got there.
Slaves to "science" believe that all knowledge/truth must be able to be reached by their "methods". They are, therefore, lacking knowledge. They are in the dark.
Thanks for the great links! It’s notable that one side of this debate uses serious scientific educational material while the other side just babbles.
In severely hard times, the better-suited offspring manage to survive while the other members starve or die of disease before they're old enough to breed.
Evolution is based solely on randomness. At a molecular and DNA level the theory fails. The vast majority of mutations (insertions, tranpositions, deletions) are lethal.
The molecular cascade of A>B>C>D>E>F>G>H>I>J>K etc., to produce a particular pigment protein is impossible via random mutations. Nice try though!
Well, I have no empirical studies and don’t pretend to, but I’ve known many upper class to “breed” if we must use that term with lower class types. Not an unusual phenomenon at all, actually. So why state as a fact that the brighter don’t “breed” with the dimmer? It’s not true.
Let me know when you find an example of two people from the groups I described actually producing offspring together.
Proof of backwards evolution is evident when you see men get elected to political office and turn into worms, slugs, and bloodsuckers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.