|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 22:23:40 GMT
A thread in Global warming was going off track to the subject of Sea Ice so I am opening this one to maybe continue it if anyone is interested. It is distinctly possible this may trend towards the Intelligent Design topic but we will see... Here are the relevant posts from Sea Ice 2009... Author=Acolyte Evolutioon has a similar problem to agw - why does the system change?
In evolution as proposed in mainstream biology, the theory states that the mechanism is mutation, that some changes in genetic structure are benign & become beneficial when the environment alters. Or some are actually beneficial & in either case, those possessing the new traits get to breed more than those without.
ELE's are a problem. (Extinction Level Events) There have been numerous of them - and after, the increase in species numbers goes through the roof. We're faced with one of two possibilities - an ELE leads to a sudden & dramatic increase in the numbers of beneficial mutations or something else drives the creation of new species & genera.
In agw, the amount of CO2 is the problem - for agw to be correct, CO2 has to be the prime driver of temperature - but then we have both lower & higher CO2 events in history - why didn't the climate runaway then? What is the mechanism that changes the climate back in the other direction?
Either CO2 is NOT the prime driver, or it works in mysterious ways. Unlike climate in general, the CO2 mechanism is quite well understood - if it is hiding some strange behaviour, there's a lot of chemistry & physics will need rewriting.
In both cases the logical assumption is to go with the one that doesn't require rewriting of basic understandings - evolution is something other than random mutation, & climate is something more than a CO2 phenomena.
And no, I am not a creationist, nor do I have a cuase to push. But Kiwi has a point - they are both qualified as Myth, & 'knowing' them as Truth is belief in the definition of 'knowing without evidence.'
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 22:31:17 GMT
Copied relevant part of poitsplace post from Sea Ice 2009... Evolutioon has a similar problem to agw - why does the system change? In evolution... ...ELE's are a problem. (Extinction Level Events) There have been numerous of them - and after, the increase in species numbers goes through the roof. We're faced with one of two possibilities - an ELE leads to a sudden & dramatic increase in the numbers of beneficial mutations or something else drives the creation of new species & genera. This comes from not fully understanding the interconnectedness of the system. A mass extinction results from a horrible upset in the environment. The tiny niches exploited by specialists are reduced causing the entire species to die (there's nothing else for them to do) while species adapted to be generalists simply exploit whatever environments and resources are available. This results in a mass extinction of all but the most fit generalists (or on occasion very lucky specialists). After things get better most of the original niches still exist and some of the generalists subgroups speciate into specialists to take advantage of the special niches. This is all exactly what the theory of evolution predicts and exactly what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 22:32:27 GMT
This comes from not fully understanding the interconnectedness of the system. A mass extinction results from a horrible upset in the environment. The tiny niches exploited by specialists are reduced causing the entire species to die (there's nothing else for them to do) while species adapted to be generalists simply exploit whatever environments and resources are available. This results in a mass extinction of all but the most fit generalists (or on occasion very lucky specialists). After things get better most of the original niches still exist and some of the generalists subgroups speciate into specialists to take advantage of the special niches. This is all exactly what the theory of evolution predicts and exactly what happens. I'm not so sure it is explained - we're talking the creation of new species with in many cases radically different DNA and/or DNA expression. This isn't finches with different shaped beaks due to different food availability or monitors adapted to swimming underwater, it wholesale translation of the species and genera balance within a very short space of time. The expression of evolution demands time to change things - an animal doesn't just get a better (whatever) simply because it can now eat more food - the process requires a reliance (purportedly) on the steady and random tick of the mutation clock. As an example, we've been purpose breeding dogs for a long time - we have a range of dogs from Great Dane to Dingo, Malamute to Chiahuahua, yet at no point have we managed to produce a new speices nor even a dog which cannot interbreed with other dogs. (except for size of course) Unless you're talking directed mutation? there's a couple of possibilities for that, & the Punctuated Equilibrium model for evolution also questions the standard model. I still think Kiwi is correct - & maybe further, we can look at the myth of Evolution (capital E to designate the standard Theory of... rather than the little changes recorded by Darwin within a species) & the mental playing field in which it exists & find strong parallels to the agw situation. In both we have a tiny effect, claimed by proponents to be the sole cause. In both we have large changes happening that don't seem to answer to the machinations of the tiny effect. In both fields, we have a genuine effect being latched onto as explanation for far greater effects for which there is little or no direct evidence.In both we have a field of study where, if you try to get funding that doesn't confirm the view, it is extremely difficult to do so. In both we are assured the science is settled even though there are questions still to be answered - ie. the theory is being treated as fact.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 23, 2009 23:02:46 GMT
Many different species in nature can interbreed. Dogs are only treated as a single species by convention. If we had discovered Chihuahuas living naturally in South America and Great Danes living naturally in Africa we would have classified then as seperate species, because really it is quite arbitary distinction.
There is also overwhelming empirical evidence that species have descended by common descent.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 23:44:06 GMT
I used to think so, socold, but now I wonder. The 'overwhelming evidence' of such consists entirely of similarity in genetics. In this there is an assumption that we actually understand genetics but we don't.
As a basic example, we have genetic material from bacteria in our cells - nobody seriously thinks we evolved from such though - it was more an invasion in which cells adapted parts they could use from the conquered.
The Human Genome mapping project was a gross disappointment for many, including Pharmaceuticals who were hoping to vastly greater numbers of genes. what it points out is that there has to be other processes going on than simply genetic composition.
The grandmother experiments and research is showing us that genes are more like the pile of bricks at a work site than the blueprints of the building. We are finding that perhaps Lamarck, while maybe not on the right track, may have actually been making a lot of sense - ie. reporting actual factual results.
The results of the grandmother research tell us that there are serious repercussions to alterations in environment & that the mutations involved are distinctly NOT random. And this IS science here - the researchers are carefully staying away from the less mainstream implications behind their work.
From biology we have a few views arising from hard science that there must be more going on with life in bodies than just genes & chemistry - there are a number of questions, observations & results that simply don't admit to explanation unless there is more going on with cells.
We stand on the precipice of a change in paradigm - the established groups will try hard to block any change, but the science is leading inexorably towards the conclusion.
The work site is not just the bricks, it is the design, modified by the environment, altered by the builder and actually far more fluid in execution that was thought till now.
And the implications change what we think about evolution quite dramatically.
In agw we are facing a period of growth in our understanding of weather systems & climate. To proclaim the science as settled before we've barely begun simply cripples the ability to find out what is truly happening.
Our tools are primitive yet, compared to the complexities we face - our computers so feeble, even with recent growth in capabilities, that we cannot model even the basics without making simplifications & assumptions. Any one of either of those categories is enough to possibly cause a wrong answer yet the models contain numerous examples of both.
And personally, I reject the idea that, in a chaotic system, it is even possible to predict a state of the system at some future time without being able to track the system changes between now & that time.
The atmosphere alone is hugely complex - to pick out a gas that is extrememly necessary to life & declare it enemy is asinine. If we add in to the mix the Ocean, the Sun, the EM fields in which Earth travels, GCR's, magnetic currents within the Earth, the electric potential between Earth & sky, (and perhaps Earth & Space) it would seem we are a very long way indeed from even seeing what effects any component has let alone being able to choose the single forcing factor that determines it all.
For agw, IMO, CO2 is the gene. As a factor, it's in there, but its role is far from being understood, nor maybe, even causative rather than reactive.
And until we know precisely the role & reactions involved with CO2 and all the other factors, to declare the science as settled simply opens the field of science to ridicule & destruction as a rational tool for advancement of knowledge.
Just as, until we know precisely the role & reactions involved with genes and all the other factors about cells & cellular interactions, the signals which trigger them & the fields which seem necessary to life itself, to declare the science about evolution as settled simply opens the field of science to ridicule & destruction as a rational tool for advancement of knowledge.
What is learned tomorrow can change everything we know - so to declare, as did physicists back in the late 19th Century, that we know it all & only decimal points remain, simply holds up reputations to ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 23:48:35 GMT
socold, I'd be interested in which species can interbreed. I know of a few where cousins in a family can do so - Lions & Tigers for example or donkeys & horses, but that is little different to a greyhound & a rottweiler breeding.
Various members of the human family interbreed, but in spite of some I have seen around, there are no half chimp-half human hybrids & chimps & humans are very close genetically.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 24, 2009 1:32:15 GMT
A descriptive narrative (any form of Darwinian evolution) suffers from the fact that a description isn't really a cause. Even the survival of the fittest is a tautology: it is "the survival of those that survive". The word "fittest" implies some sort of value statement. Even the word "Evolution" is steeped with value, implying that there has been "Ascent", development of "higher" organisms. All this comes out of the World View of the 1800's and is about as unscientific as can be. There is no reason why slime mold isn't the highest form of life. It certainly might outlive most of "advanced" species. It is also capable of topological mathematics (part way down page) www.ams.org/mathmedia/archive/10-2000-media.htmlSo "Bare" "neutral" evolution isn't anything but a narrative in which we see meaning. To pretend we can discuss this without reference to our Worldviews shows a naivety and lack of understanding of how our personal view colours all our thinking. If there were such a thing as a purely disinterested Scientist, not concerned if the species homo sapiens should go the way of the dinosaur, we would be appalled. The HEAT in the debates (evolution and AGW) indicates this very well. We get heated when things touch our (for want of a better word) soul.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 24, 2009 1:53:34 GMT
As to what I believe? I believe in a Creator, and accept the scientific data pretty much as per the consensus of most scientists.
I see no contradiction between religion and science - only in the small minds of some scientists without faith or hope, and in those of religion who have such a small understanding of God, that they think His Revelation to man, written in the vocabulary of scientific understanding of thousands of years ago, somehow is still scientifically accurate!
So I end up being at war with both 7 day creationism and Atheistic Evolutionists. Nor would I describe myself as a "Theistic Evolutionist".
I think God took his time to prepare the earth, setting up the processes, and creating the ecology. I also see that all this was inherent in matter from the beginning. That the deepest atomic structure creates the nature of life: such as the Hydrogen Bond, which controls both the way ice freezes (with water being densest at 4C so lakes don't freeze all the way down) and why DNA works: the hydrogen bonds between H & O atoms on the rival Base pairs is what holds the DNA together - strong enough to exist, and weak enough to be pulled apart to enable the code to be read in the cell factory.
I would be a fool to think I can unravel the secrets of creation. I just glory in the amazing complexity of all life forms. Even my broadbeans show amazing intelligence: each node has increasing leaf count, 2,3,4,5,6. From 6 leaves on, the flower nodes appear, and the leaf count stops. How does it do that? I didn't get that from a book, I look & see & learn.
My peas also count, and don't start flowering until an exact number of nodes with leaves only have grown. Different peas have different node counts (dwarf peas vs normal).
The whole of nature declares the Glory of God. and in him, we live and move and have our being.
I think we need a much, much, bigger conception of God.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 24, 2009 3:29:25 GMT
Well kiwi, I think maybe I am such a fool - I can't help wondering if our purpose here, the reason why there is life, is exactly the thing you think would make you foolish - I think plumbing the secrets of Creation or the Cosmos is why we are here.
There's a few too many little inconsistencies & strangenesses for me to accept randomity as purpose, & looking around I see people, otherwise dead in the head, suddenly awaken when they find something to learn. Look at children - full of light and laughter as they explore a new world - until we beat them down with school & an insistence that only the authorised way can be right.
I think Learning is the game, Knowledge is the scoring system & Wisdom is the cup at the end of the game.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 24, 2009 4:03:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 24, 2009 10:30:34 GMT
That sea ice thread keeps getting Evolutionised... From there, I said... evolution has a problem with the falsifiability though doesn't it? How do you falsifiy it?
So if the environment stays the same then life forms shouldn't alter? damn, there go big boobs & peathingy tails... ;D
But seriously, how is Evolution falsifiable?
And poitsplace replied... The environment doesn't have to change, environmental changes just cause huge equilibrium shifts in the various traits (many of which may have been neutral with respect to the conditions in the previous environment). Selective breeding is in fact proof of evolution, but most pepole get hung up on the concept of "natural selection" thinking it somehow doesn't apply...but there's no difference to the organism with respect to "natural" selection.
As for falsifiability...one could simply lie about the results on selective breeding or on tests that demonstrate some aspect of evolution.
Of course, it's very difficult to do this because evolution is supported in so many ways there isn't really much wiggle room left. The minor details may change (like the minor details of our understanding of gravity) but essentially everything we "know" about evolution (or gravity) will be in some way applicable even then.
Here, check this out...it's rather fast talking and probably contains a lot of information that may be hard to comprehend but...that's not my problem or the problem of the person making the video (BTW there are some others on that user's site) www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
also...this really needs to be in another area of the forums now.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 24, 2009 11:49:59 GMT
Evolution is not the adaption of a species to its environment.. The Gene pool of every organism is part of the property of that species. So any given species can adapt to its environment within a certain range. No species consists of a single individual. Once a species gets reduced below a certain number of individuals it is normally doomed to extinction, as the gene pool shrinks.
Adaption is seldom the creation of new genes, but rather a increase in the occurrence of the most useful genes. Though destructive mutations occur - blind fish in caves is an example, but hardly genetic progress.
Adaption an also be a blind ally - those species that adapt too far, and lose gene pool variability, can't adapt back.
Extending adaptation to the "Theory of Evolution- i.e. the "rise" of higher organisms from "lower" is invalid. You cannot argue from a minor detail to a larger picture. Adaption isn't evolution. Nor is the language "neutral" science.
In the same way, small effects in climate are extrapolated out past reality.
In plant breeding, there has NEVER (to my knowledge) been an example of an engineering mutation leading to a true advance - i.e. a random mutation leading to an improved food crop. Mutations can be engineered by various chemicals and this had lead to many new & strange (distorted!) flowers. Loss of pigment leading to variegated leafs etc - but all damaging mutations. Useful in the flower garden maybe.
The real genetic progress is carried out by transferring genes from one species to another, or by cross breeding related species to bring back a lost gene- such as disease resistance.
Since we can increase the mutation rate manyfold in the lab, we should have been able to do some real "evolutionary" progress, but nothing startling has been done to my knowledge. That is why we use "Genetic engineering" rather than trying to using mutations.
No one has moved a fish along the path to being an amphibian! Surely if time+blind chance can do it, science should be able to repeat that - after all, we have the pattern to follow, while blind chance had to make it up as it? went along.
The grand theory of evolution, i..e Blind chance+natural selection+lots & lots of time = "progress" isn't rational, nor mathematically likely.
Any alternative theory shares most of the same problems as the Evolutionary theory. All theories of origin have to be a narrative myth or paradigm. All are unprovable.
However, those who go to fight this issue (on all sides) tend to be (1) passionate about their belief and (2) ignorant of the nature of scientific knowledge.
The problem is that "evidence" is interpreted from within a different framework, so both sides end up speaking past one another. There is no neutral common ground to carry on a rational discussion. It becomes a game where both sides score by different rules, and the two audiences think that their side is winning.
Why they bother I don't know.
My mythological narrative follows: ;D
I affirm that I believe that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. I think he did this over a long period of time, and that the scriptural account was written to accommodate the thinking and observations of people of that time.
I have no problem with those who believe that God created everything in 6 days. I'll leave them to that, I don't need them to think like me.
And for those who want to live in a chaotic purposeless universe, I just say, have a look around. God himself says (according to St Paul) that his creation leaves us without an excuse. Seek and you shall find.
And to those who are searching and seeking & open to the Truth, I hope you do find what you seek, though our paths may be different. Of course I think there is only one path, but I am not the judge of your journey.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 24, 2009 12:28:42 GMT
And poitsplace replied... The environment doesn't have to change, environmental changes just cause huge equilibrium shifts in the various traits (many of which may have been neutral with respect to the conditions in the previous environment). Selective breeding is in fact proof of evolution, but most pepole get hung up on the concept of "natural selection" thinking it somehow doesn't apply...but there's no difference to the organism with respect to "natural" selection. As for falsifiability...one could simply lie about the results on selective breeding or on tests that demonstrate some aspect of evolution. Of course, it's very difficult to do this because evolution is supported in so many ways there isn't really much wiggle room left. The minor details may change (like the minor details of our understanding of gravity) but essentially everything we "know" about evolution (or gravity) will be in some way applicable even then. Here, check this out...it's rather fast talking and probably contains a lot of information that may be hard to comprehend but...that's not my problem or the problem of the person making the video (BTW there are some others on that user's site) www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNucAh but there's a problem... once the goal seeker has come into being, the goal begins to influence the path of blind chance. In an unchanging environment there are, in most species, choices being made. The peac o c k doesn't grow his tail because he thinks it looks pretty, it, like breasts on human females, is an evolutionary trigger - the better the tail the obviously better breeder he will make. From mating dances to display to calls & other behaviours, many life forms have ways to influence the choice to breed. So in an unchanging environment, there should be no change to the life form except perhaps in the evolutionary triggers, which will 'improve' until there is an evolutionary handicap involved. Now the various possible mutations are supposedly continuing all this time. When the ecosphere changes for the life form, unless there is environmental impact to the genes, which is more likely to produce bad results than beneficial, the mutation rate stays constant. So while the type of mutation which is beneficial may alter, the chances of it happening are the same. So after something like an ELE, the spread of a given species into new niches should be slow - it takes time for the adaptations to come along & spread through the species. There is no path I have heard of which somehow triggers massive change in either species or genera after an ELE yet in every case of which we know, there has been an explosion of life in number and type after such events. Without some change in the mutation rate, this is not a good scenario for random-mutation generation of evolution. Survival of the fittest can't operate until there are fit & less fit & they can only come along at the rate of background mutation... UNLESS there is something else in operation. It's like the butterfly with a reptilian eye on its wings - the eye looks just like the major predator of the bird that really favours those butterflies. Now survival of the fittest doesn't mean destruction of the not-so-fit; in fact we have numerous examples of strategies among life forms where the not-so-fit get a chance to breed. there is no equivalent mechanism to get rid of those who aren't a 100% convert to the new paradigm. The suggested explanation for the eye on the wings is that there were some butterfilies who got some balc spots & that gave them a slight edge in survival, then over time, the black spots became the perfect eyes. This begs at least one significant question - how did blind chance come up with the exact eye of the reptile that likes to eat the birds that like to eat the butterflies? But given there is no way to ensure removal of the black spot butterflies, which after all apparently had a small advantage by having such spots, & given that even many generations later such mutations can revert, how is it possible that there are no black spot butterflies around at all? When the change came, it came wholesale & permanently & very specifically. Blind-chance evolution gets stretched very thin here - it becomes faith alone that supports it in cases like this. Also, I don't think Evolution has all that much support in the factual sense. Like agw, it is a consensus view & those who try to question it get sidelined very quickly. Asking for crossover psecies is nothing at all like asking for temperatures - in temperatures we have a gradated range, so it's specious (*grins*) to ask for transition temperatures - whereas species are carefully differentiated by Man - it either is or isn't. Yet we don't have any half & half species. Some cousins can breed, usually producing mules, but we don't have, even in cases where we've been playing with the breeding, any crossovers. Now think about it practically - in the wild, a mutation occurs, stepping a leopard (say) towards being a cheetah. Now the other leopards aren't going to want to breed with the sport. And it is unlikely in the extreme that in that mutant's lifetime, there is going to be another mutation, exactly the same or close enough to allow breeding, that will also allow for the animal to alter it's designated best-breeder pattern. So even if by some amazingly wild chance, two animals, one male & one female, get born at the same moment, they are unlikely to find each other attractive - their evolutionary triggers are geared towards the prime members of the species from which they came. So just how does an evolution operating on blind chance produce a new species? Where do these new species come from? How do they come about so quickly? Given we can't do it even when trying, does this constitute falsification of Evolution? If not, how can Evolution be falsified? And if it can't, it just ain't Science, it's religion & faith.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 24, 2009 14:24:11 GMT
The overwhelming evidence for common descent of species comes in several parts: emergance of animals and plants in fossil record, transitional fossils, geographic distribution of species and genetic markers. The fossil record shows that species and families of organisms have appeared not all at once, but continuously over time. Wikipedia has a summary timeline of when different animals and plants first appear: 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes), 3 billion years of photosynthesis, 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes), 1 billion years of multicellular life, 600 million years of simple animals, 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans) 550 million years of complex animals 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians, 475 million years of land plants, 400 million years of insects and seeds, 360 million years of amphibians, 300 million years of reptiles 200 million years of mammals, 150 million years of birds, 130 million years of flowers, 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out, 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo, 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today, 25,000 years since Neanderthals died out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionSo either we believe new animals and plants appear out of thin air every few hundred years, kind of like some frequently appearing space odyssey monolith, or we look for a more plausible explaination. The fossil record does contain transitional fossils - fossils which share features held by two distinct groups. The most commonly cited example (probably because we are human-centered) are hominid fossils which have both features unique to modern man and features unique to modern apes. Darwin also noticed in the geographical distribution of modern species that island species tend to be similar to mainland species, as if in their isolation they have genetically diverged. In addition certain genetic similarities provide overwhelming evidence of such common descent. When homo sapiens and chimpanzees are found to share viral DNA insertions in the same place, the only plausible explaination is both species have inherited these insertions from a infected common ancestor.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 24, 2009 18:31:27 GMT
And poitsplace replied... The environment doesn't have to change, environmental changes just cause huge equilibrium shifts in the various traits (many of which may have been neutral with respect to the conditions in the previous environment). Selective breeding is in fact proof of evolution, but most pepole get hung up on the concept of "natural selection" thinking it somehow doesn't apply...but there's no difference to the organism with respect to "natural" selection. As for falsifiability...one could simply lie about the results on selective breeding or on tests that demonstrate some aspect of evolution. Of course, it's very difficult to do this because evolution is supported in so many ways there isn't really much wiggle room left. The minor details may change (like the minor details of our understanding of gravity) but essentially everything we "know" about evolution (or gravity) will be in some way applicable even then. Here, check this out...it's rather fast talking and probably contains a lot of information that may be hard to comprehend but...that's not my problem or the problem of the person making the video (BTW there are some others on that user's site) www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNucSo after something like an ELE, the spread of a given species into new niches should be slow - it takes time for the adaptations to come along & spread through the species. There is no path I have heard of which somehow triggers massive change in either species or genera after an ELE yet in every case of which we know, there has been an explosion of life in number and type after such events. Without some change in the mutation rate, this is not a good scenario for random-mutation generation of evolution. Survival of the fittest can't operate until there are fit & less fit & they can only come along at the rate of background mutation... UNLESS there is something else in operation.... ...Now survival of the fittest doesn't mean destruction of the not-so-fit; in fact we have numerous examples of strategies among life forms where the not-so-fit get a chance to breed. there is no equivalent mechanism to get rid of those who aren't a 100% convert to the new paradigm... ...So just how does an evolution operating on blind chance produce a new species? Where do these new species come from? How do they come about so quickly? Given we can't do it even when trying, does this constitute falsification of Evolution? LOL, it's funny how people often cite evidence "against" evolution that answers their other criticisms. True, there isn't any way to weed out the unimportant (to their preenet environment) traits and ones that are not too harmful also continue at increased rates simply because they don't entirely kill off the animal that possesses the less effective traits. In fact, sexual reproduction is actually so popular specifically because it allows the accumulation of ENORMOUS quantities of neutral, harmful and sometimes outright deadly traits. Ah but there are two copies you see. Now let's look at...wolves...or more to the point...their "cousins" the dogs. Every single breed is derived from wolves. Look at the staggering diversity. We've got enormous great danes and tiny chihuahuas. We've got dogs with short or long legs, fast or slow gates, stout or trim bodies, hairy and hairless...with all manner of behaviors...and everything between.. Almost all of these traits were a part of the standard set of genes within the wolf species. It took man just a few thousand years to radically change them into all these breeds...the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. This is how the niches are filled so quickly. Over time, through normal genetic drift, these new species will develop their own collection of neutral genes, allowing them to adapt to changes in the environment. Of course, the interplay between environment, evolution and the blind luck draw of random mutations makes it a very chaotic process with no set end point. The reason evolution appears this way to you is that you're simply unaware of the STAGGERING amounts of information that point to it. Since life affects so much of the world we've run into evidence across numerous disciplines. Because there are so many different disciplines and so much evidence pointing to evolution...virtually any question you could pose or any criticism you could make...has already been answered in numerous ways. It is essentially down to this...either evolution is right, evolution is ever so slightly wrong in some teeny, tiny area but in such a way as to allow the predictions and mechanisms to still show every single sign of working... ...or the world has been built down to the subatomic level with the intention of making it look as if evolution is the mechanism behind speciation and all species. LOL, you could make up some bogus evidence against it...but it's almost certainly been countered already.
|
|