Because they haven’t been crushed by rocks enough to evolve into tanks. But they still have some pretty good defense.
Perhaps, but they aren’t perfect, which is what we’re arguing.
Well, they’re about as perfect as an animal can get.
“About” being the key word.
Cockroaches, anyone?
If you’re going to explain evolution, use cockroaches as an example. Sure, they can’t survive being crushed under a rock, because like Lolipopman said: they haven’t been crushed by rocks enough.
But pretty much everything we devised to battle cockroaches, they’ve found a way to adapt so they can survive our new chemicals in no time.
Edit: even if you crush them, they found a way to drop their eggs (granted: they have to be fertilized first) so they can still hatch in the future. So unless you crush those eggs as well, they’ll “survive” a rock smash (and here you have step one of evolution to survive rocksmashing).
Everyone can kills everything lving, but scorpions won’t go extinct anytime soon.
A scroll was found, and was dated to be many thousands of years older than the first ‘official’ bible. Secondly, the Torah, and the holy scrolls of Judaism have parts of the bible in them. Third of all, Christianity, as like any other faith, is a conglomerate of faiths built on older ones (namely Judaism, and Islam). You could say, that Religeon is a belief system designed to stabilise civilisation. It’s when people start taking it literally, then the problems start to appear.The crusades, the Conquistadores, the white man’s burden, these all could be considered a form of propaganda, the right to rape and pillage, in the name of god. Personally, I’m a deist, a person who believes, that there is something tangible out there in the multiverse. Much like Einstein, actually. To tell you the truth, arguing with socially programmed people is pointless. Before you attain reason (genetically. A 7 year old will not provide reasons for his/her actions.) you can be programmed by anything. It’s a form of imprinting. You will believe whatever you are taught to believe.
I saw a cool video lately showing off some new computer software. What they did was they created a program that simulates evolution. They used two legs as an example.
As the program was running you could see that very early in the evolution process the legs couldn’t stand up straight, balance themselves or walk. However, when time passed, the legs would gradually balance themselves and eventually were capable of walking straight up without falling down.
This is a great way of showing how animals have adapted to certain environments, an animal that lives in the hot desert would never survive in the extremely cold Antartics. This is obvious because they evolved to cope with hot desert terrain, not an extremely cold environment.
Except scientific evolution is random and doesn’t have a mind behind it. If you develop a longer beak to eat insects in tree bark, you live an pass your genes on.
If you are born with your brain suspended out your ear, you have problems.
Except my point was that the two views aren’t incompatible. You say the bird mutated a longer beak by random genetic interaction with a free radical, but it’s just as easy for ID’ers to say “God intentionally hit the bird with free radical to mutate the beak.”
Either way the impetus is the same, it’s just a matter of your opinion of the cause or lack of one.
Granted most ID’ers aren’t this subtle with their arguments. I like to think this is what they mean, though.
Didn’t they invent language and written word and such later on in the old testament though? So wouldn’t the accounts of the people before that have been lost?
The problem is, that of process.
Is there hard evidence for information being added to the code, to allow a creature to be sustainable, in a changing enviroment. It is fine to say that changes happen, but what does that mechanism look like?
Abiogenisis, can not be answered by science, and nor does it need to look at this to determine if methodalogical naturalism is a sufficient model to explain evolution. What science does have to do, is prove the mechanism - and in terms of studies, I would very much like to see the data both for, and against. Behe pretty much shot himself in the foot several times when his therory was examine, for ID. But then, is non-guided Evo suficient to account for seeming issues that some claim are part and parcel of Evo itself?
In order for a new species to appear, there has to be sufficient change in the code, to allow for it. The whole “Is info added” to the code, is a challenging one, because first define “added information”. Is the repeating gene sequence that we have in our human code, enough to say that we do in fact add information to the human code? (Humans have… what is … something like 90% repeating genes in the average dna strand. Why is such repetiative code needed? The puffer has done very well with a mere 30% repeating gene sequence.
So, would such a sequence constitue there being “added” info?
There is research that is being done dealing with the issue of random mutations in fungus and bacteria… They use these, because several life cycles can be completed in a very short time. Interesting enough, there have been claims that their efforts to get a “new bacteria” through random mutation (when certain parts are taken away, or added) have failed. (As far as having a random addition of info to happen).
The doofy part of this, is that if you take an anthrax microbe and expose it a certain frequency of ultra-violet, after a bit, you end up with Terburculosis (SP?) So, does this equal Evo, or is it merely an adaptation that is allowable in an existing, closed gene code?
Part of the problem is knowing what info is fact, or fiction. Most just simply parrot info that they have heard. (Me included) I am not working in the field of Biology, and there have been mistakes made on both sides of the debate.
The problem with ID, is proving What Id made it happen. Not only that, irreducible complexity fails under the gravity of it’s own assumptions. How do we know that something can be irriducibly complex? Just because we can’t engineer something to happen, does it mean it can’t?
There are plenty of websites and videos out there explaining how new information is added you just need to search.
Google and youtube are your friends.
I wasn’t trying to quote you, it was meant for Jeannotvb.
A couple of people seemed to be confused about the actual process of evolution here. It isn’t the result of some repeated activity forcing a creature to adapt, but rather a random mutation that ends up being beneficial.
A couple of users said something about crushing cockroaches with rocks to make them resistant to that kind of attack? Sorry to say, that would simply not work. It doesn’t matter how many roaches you smash, they won’t suddenly build up an immunity over the generations. What they’d have to rely on is a genetic mutation that greatly enhances the strength of their carapace or something, and having that mutation spread amongst the population fast enough.
If simply killing roaches with rocks could make them resistant, then the children of olympic athletes would have extremely fit and muscular bodies at birth.
my bad bro. point stands.
You tube? Google? They can be, but I mean in terms of peer reviewed journals. REAL science reveiw. Any retard can get on You tube and make retarded claims. (Not to say they all are, but how does one know, when one is not a scientist? That is the problem with parroting info.)
If you take cycle-cell anmimea, there are some potential advantages, and some very real disadvantages. One being, a person who has it, is more resistant to malaria, however, a person’s life span is considerable shorter. It has a survival advantage in one sense, (against malaria) but it shortens the life of the host. Though it is a common kind of mutation, there is a cost. A cost that may be too steep in terms of survival advantage.
I listened to three days of arguements from top pros in their various fields relating to biology. (They were in the creation camp mostly, but not all of them - these folks were PHD certified) Then it was the turn of the EVO camp… they did not address the issues at hand. NOT ONE OF THE ISSUES! They were boycotting the hearings,m because they claimed they did not want to validate the creation side as worth discussing… but still the concerns were not addressed. (the Kansas evolution trials - you can download them for free from Audible.com - but be warned… It is a LONG series.).
So, I never really did hear why those positions (Creationist veiw and the science they claimed to have to back up their side of it) were wrong, at least from the opposition perspective. I did hear arguements from a few scientist friends/aquintances I have (One being A very well respected Paleontologist - Curator and field man for a natural history museum in Pheonix)
Even he said the issues are complex, and one of the biggest reasons are, that of defining terms. There are various veiws as to the mechanisms of Evo. in some, there are overlaps with reasons why theirs is right… and so forth, but regardless, they all agree in change over time.
Baccon and Eggs… Yes, and yet there are those who offer that it only takes minor mutations to make major changes. The problem comes in terms of duality - On one hand, you get this, on the other, it is problem because of that. As far as selection goes, evo looks at populations, not so much individuals. So, in the classic case of finches, the ones with the longer beeks live, and the ones that have shorter beeks die out. Is this evolution, or merely adaptation, devoid of any real species changing power? I suppose that would depend on the time frame… Yes?
The videos on youtube are from scientists who did peer reviewed articles about it.
Google can be used to find examples of those too.
As I say, I do not think all of them are false, but you can understand how there are those on such sites, who really do not know what they are talking about. Some of them are simply horrid.
What evidence do you think the strongest for evolution? For me, I cannot nail it down to any one field per say, so much as the collective evidence from many fields. Paleontology can certainly address many of the questions about evo, but not all. It does not deal specifically with certain biology mechanisms. Nor is biology evidence on its own, because it would not include LONG history. The advances in terms of paleo-biology are amazing.
The T-Rex soft tissue found in limestone a while back, was somewhat of a crap-storm sweepstakes - Those in the young earth camp, thought it conclusive proof or a young earth… Nope. The supposed human footprints found with Dino prints have been shot down too. It is interesting for sure.
What is your take?