There are lots of folks out there who pretty much deny that any evidence of Evolution is ever put forth. I am throwing this out there for enlightenment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28985201?pg=1#Tech_DinoBird
I saw a bunch of "perhaps", "similarity that adds to the argument", etc. I didn't see anyone want to go on a limb and say "Ha, you dumb non-evolutionary-believing freaks! This PROVES EVOLUTION!" But I won't go there. I'll talk about the bellows lung one in number 6. One of the things that I (as a non-believer in the Darwinian evolution theory) am stuck on is that generally systems don't "evolve" from worse to better, but that mutations generally are destructive (think cancer). I mean, if what I'm reading is accurate, part 6 says that there was a dinosaur that "evolved" a bellows set of lungs. How did that happen? Its mom and daddy dinosaur had "regular" dino lungs, but there was a mutation in it's DNA that caused it to have a bellows set of lungs rather than the normal dino ones? And it was able to procreate with another dinosaur (also with normal lungs) and have its DNA be passed down to a bunch of baby dinosaurs who had this bellows set of lungs? How many children do you know are born with a form of cancer that allows them to have gills? And then to pass it on? I'm not trying to be flip, but that's what you're asking me to buy into here, isn't it?
JE, are you saying that the only people who don't believe in evolution are religious advocates? Or was that a new topic?
The article had nothing to do with religion. Many religious people also believe in evolution. You = Fail.
That is true. The arguements are not mutually exclusive. For instance, what if something made life, and then it evolved. Then you have a situation where they are not mutually exclusive. What is indicative though, is most folks who do believe in creationism, believe in something like the Bibles version of it, which does make it mutually exclusive. It all just matters how you see the world.
If both parents have a dominant recessive trait it can manifest itself in later generations when the breeding is right, they have shown it in biology experiements. Secondly, your statment about not evolving from worst to better is also wrong. Medical journalist have documented that many people now are being born without wisdom teeth, which is a genetic improvement for humans, as wisdom teeth can cause a large variety of medical problems. It is a big enough trend that it has been noticed by the medical community.
Well thanks for ANOTHER theory based on well THEORY....You can go all over the web and find Theory's about God, Revolution, Evolution an so on but guess what they have one thing in common they are all THEORY'S which is not fact on all counts.
Were any evolutionists going to help me out with this one? Someone brought up the "dominant recessive" theory...which I can only guess meant they thought having a bellows set of lungs might have been a recessive gene passed on. I hadn't seen the "wisdom tooth evolution" topic before...I have to read up more on that. It seems very odd that things like the appendix haven't been "evolved" in however many millions of years we've been around, but that teeth we don't use did. How would that happen? Would the parent gene mutate into one that, instead of saying you're going to have 32 teeth, drop that down to 28? And that gets passed on? And I said "generally worse to better". I can give you thousands of cancers that are destructive mutations of cell genes. You've brought up a relatively new topic about not having wisdom teeth, which you assume is better than having wisdom teeth. If I said to you that instead of the new being having 28 teeth instead of 32, it had 2...would that be "better"?
Want PROOF of evolution? Look in the mirror. Do you look the same as you did 20 years ago? Of course not. You evolved. Nature evolves. Case closed.
You're right, Stevenson. The scar on my ear wasn't from a dog that bit me, it's from gene mutation. And my eyes haven't gotten bluer or grown in size, so they must not evolve with the rest of my body, which is curious...how does each body part know when to start and stop mutating?! Then there's my hair...it's shorter than it was in 1989, so by the "Stevenson Mirror Theory" I must have evolved shorter hair. Probably because of global warming. But how, then, did I grow more body hair? This is perplexing. Good think the case is closed. Too many questions. I'll enjoy other, potentially more logical, cases better than yours, Stevenson. No offense.
Brian, your line of thinking looks similar to mine regarding the thought of a "progressive" or "linear" evolution. I am not a creationist, first and foremost (to get that out of the way), but I also have a hard time seeing a linear chain of evolution as a realistic theory. How does that happen? If it is based on mutated genes or altered DNA, shouldn't there be unknown numbers of mutations (or evolution) in the fossil record that didn't survive? That's the fundamental flaw in the Darwinist argument IMO. Well, that and the actual creation of life, which also has never been duplicated in a controlled setting, but that's for another thread. As you pointed out, many genetic mutations are destructive, as you pointed out with cancer cells. Shouldn't that also apply to evolution? If the case is that species inherently adapt to the positive in order to survive changing ecosystems, then why do some species become extinct? In my view, the thought of a linear evolutionary chain is almost as faith-based as a creationist's belief on some levels.
