Scientifically it is neither. No evidence fits Creationism, plenty of evidence disproves Young Earth Creationism.
Do you believe in evolution ?
- Thread starter kaka4200
- Start date
- Status
Scientifically it is neither. No evidence fits Creationism, plenty of evidence disproves Young Earth Creationism.
it's not 99% and less than 10% of our dna does anything I think it's 8.6% that's actually used and it's 96% similar to bonobo apes not all apes
I've seen the full interview of this video. The woman is Wendy Wright, and she doesn't understand the subject matter at all. She repeatedly says to Dawkins throughout the video, 'Show me the evidence' and Dawkins offers to take her to a Natural History Museum so that she can see it, but museums aren't her thing. lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
I don't think that qualifies your argument, although you are correct here.
I know, man. It's one of the most infuriating things I've ever seen. I have a friend whose mum is a young earth creationist, and when his sister asked if she could go to the natural history museum, she said eys, but then said "why would you want to go, all the "dinosaur bones" are made of papier maché"
If you believe the biblical Adam & Eve garbage then ask yourself how did the different races of mankind occur??
Why do people who live in very hot places such as Africa have black skin which helps absorb the suns heat? Dark skin has large concentrations of melanin to protect against ultraviolet light.
Why do people such as Inuits who live in cold arctic places have narrow eyes which helps to keep out the glare of snow??
This my friend is evidence of humans adapting to their location
alternatively we could call it evolutionso why do chinese people have squinty eyes too? why don't all people in hot countries where the sun is bright have squinty eyes? you can't explain that and don't try to make out it's because of sun glasses.
why don't people in norways artic circle have squinty eyes ? iceland?
some of you are claiming XXX is because evolution is a slow process over thousands of millenia.
others are claiming it's happened already but only in special places
does evolution just pick and choose what fits
why don't people in norways artic circle have squinty eyes ? iceland?
some of you are claiming XXX is because evolution is a slow process over thousands of millenia.
others are claiming it's happened already but only in special places
does evolution just pick and choose what fits
uh.. yeah. That's the very principle of evolution.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
Well in China the sun is actually very strong, particularly in rural China. However, they could well be descended from people who lived in snowier climates ie mountains, which Chinese people have. This would cause "squientier" eyes.
People in Norway, I believe, are immigrants.
Yes evolution picks and chooses what fits for that area of the world...that's one of the main principles.
Yes, evolution does happen over millennia. Countries really have to be very isolated for their people to have evolutionary characteristics appropriate for that area because evolution is such a long process.
Anyway, picking examples out of the bag doesn't help your cause.
Please, go and read the wikipedia article on evolution because your questions are absolutely moronic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,962
- Location
- Essex
Hang on, unless I've misunderstood evolution all my life, the whole point is that yes, one day a monkeys tail did fall off (i.e. it was born without one) and so it had an advantage and survived to reproduce. It's cells didn't think "ah, you'd be better without a tail" and slowly got rid of it!
Evolution doesn't pick anything it is not a conscious decision. Evolution is a race where genes hurtle towards a reproductive goal whilst the environment and the other contestants interact with their progress to a lesser or greater extent depending on how those genes express their phenotypes (and in a few notable cases genotypes).
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
No, you are picking and choosing random example of things that YOU think are a problem, whereas evolutionary scientists will already have solved them.
To pick something out of your random bag, why is it that Kenyan people can run faster than most of the rest of the world?
No, you don't get it.
Evolution isn't a principle of design to improve. It's a principle that the stuff that's not good enough will literally die off. There is and always will be plenty of "mediocre" traits and features of life that will seem bonkers or just unnecessary, but that's not a problem.
Also the Chinese don't have "squinty" eyes. Their eylids are just a different shape. They can see just as well as westerners, so that's why they haven't died off.
Last edited:
arknor - you will do better if you think of two important things that I have put in that last post which may or may not stand out to you.
It is the genes that are selected not the actual organism.
This selection by and large occurs at the phenotype level.
Once you get your head around that suddenly a lot of the stumbling blocks you are finding will be removed.
It is the genes that are selected not the actual organism.
This selection by and large occurs at the phenotype level.
Once you get your head around that suddenly a lot of the stumbling blocks you are finding will be removed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,962
- Location
- Essex
That's because they have to catch their food rather than pop down to Asda, innit?
IIRC the loss of tail was a byproduct of another adaption. At some point "We" started to became more bipedal as it allowed us to follow migratory animals faster. As we spent more time upright the need of a tail became redundant and rather than "falling off" it shrank over time. The remnant coccyx still provides a vital role though hence why its still there
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,962
- Location
- Essex
IIRC the loss of tail was a byproduct of another adaption. At some point "We" started to became more bipedal as it allowed us to follow migratory animals faster. As we spent more time upright the need of a tail became redundant and rather than "falling off" it shrank over time. The remnant coccyx still provides a vital role though hence why its still there
Doh, ok bad example! But still, my underlying assertion is valid isn't it?
Also evolution acts on one individual not on a race or species. if a genetic trait is successful it will tend to become dominant in a population, if it is unsuccessful or damaging, it will be bred out. That is why it will take hundreds or thousands of generations to affect a species.
Yes but its not quite true to think of evolution as only happening as an adaptive process, natural selection also doesn't just produce ever increasingly complex organisms and more often than not if its not being used it will be "switched off". Its why we carry so much junk DNA. Actual changes though, again IIRC are mostly attributed to gene drift, Our DNA is under constant attack / bombardment from radiation, chemicals and viruses and sometimes random mutations crop up during replication that becomes dominant or at least survives (so long as it doesn't kill us) but they might not offer any significant advantage.
My memory isn't very great on this but some studies in epigenetics suggested that sudden environmental changes could quickly affect the "on / off" system in genes and what is transferred to offspring. Depending on how long term the environmental change was depended on how long term this expression lasted. An example given was a study of dutch survivors of Nazi pow camps that due to being exposed to prolonged famine were more likely to produce grandchildren that were more predisposed to diabetes.
Last edited:
- Status