So being gay is a handicap? I'm confused... I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to figure out your actual opinion on "homosexuality"
This is an old question that has been covered quite a few times. Really, if you want to challenge evolution, you should take the necessary classes or at least read up on it so that you've already run across these questions being asked and answered. There's no point re-asking questions that have been asked and responded to thousands of times in the past century. This provides a very quick primer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml The classic version of this question is "What good is half an eye?" so if you google that, you can get more information.
That's been my biggest problem with macro-evolution since high school. I'm not a creationist, though, so I'll put that out there. To me, the would have to be millions/billions of genetic variances to advance a species to the point it is something different. Some people subscribe to the 'big jump' theory, but if that's the case, wouldn't there be failed examples of new species that can't survuve, even in modern times? We won't even get into the larger issues with evolution, starting at the time of primordial soup, abiogenesis, and such.
I told him thanks for playing because he attacked and generalized my thinking to all people that have a religious faith. I guess he thinks that's school yard banter.
That's a rather elitist way to look at it. "Here, read this article". There are holes in the theory of evolution in terms of macro-evolution and the origin of life. Claiming that there are not, and pulling out the "you're just uneducated" card, shows your own ignorance, IMO. In terms of a gay genetic code, I am willing to accept that it exists, based on observation. Besides, Tim Tebow pings my GAYDAR big time! [video=youtube;ojXkblN7pC0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojXkblN7pC0[/video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojXkblN7pC0
We aren't talking about eyes. We are talking about the respiratory and circulator systems. The slightest change can kill an animal. Being without an eye means you can still survive through the mutation. Being able to not breath in water will kill you. Not being able to convert dissolved oxygen in water will kill you.
But then they hold no relevance to the point. If homosexuality isn't similar to genetic mutations like "down syndrome" or "impotence"; then how can you bring it up?
Yeah I was a little twisted by the comment of "I don't understand, which is why I am wrong". I think I understand it quite well. I guess he, like crowbot, assume that I am another facist religious fanatic.
lungs did not evolve from gills. they are separate structures, and presumably the aquatic to terrestrial transitional species had both, as do modern frogs when they transition from tadpoles to adults.
It's not elitist to note that a question being asked isn't new and has already been explained many times. If I come to a basketball discussion and say "The reason I think basketball is easy is because how can the defense stop you if you just pick up the ball and run with it?" would it be elitist to point out that I clearly haven't read up on the rules and should do so? I think it would be a reasonable request. Obviously, I think it's perfectly within reason that evolution could be challenged, which is why I said that if you want to challenge it, you should at least learn about it, so you know what challenges have already been raised and responded to. Coming into a discussion with challenges that were raised and answered many times is a little pointless.
It's the same principle. You're asking how transitory systems can come about, which is exactly what the "What good is half an eye?" question deals with.
How do you know this? How did amphibians evolve? Both lungs and gills must have evolved from SOMETHING, right? Please explain.
Well, that's one theory. At which point does a new species develop? Shouldn't there be many different variations of one species then?
That is a massive mutation that takes a drastic transition. If that were the case, then we would see many species in mid process. We would find animals with both lungs and gills. It would be pretty common during that transitional phase and we would have millions of fossil records to prove it. When an animal is buried in sludge or "earth"; they can be fossilized very easily. And transitioning from water to land would have many opportunities; especially if it took millions of years to transition to have sludge or earth bury a few thousand species.
Most of those species we know existed for tens of thousands, if not millions, of years. What makes one species advance to the point it is another species?
lungs and gills evolved from proto-lungs and proto-gills. if you're asking for the technical details it's not hard to research this stuff.
