> -----Original Message----- > From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:56 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Religious nut shows her stripes > > i'm not so sure... > > I think it was George Carlin who asked..."if man evolved from apes, > why do we still have apes?"
It's a cute line, but not valid. There are several myths about evolution and this is one of biggest. +) "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"? We are not descended from monkeys or apes. Monkeys and apes and us (and going back further potentially all mammals) are all descended from the same ancestral line. That line evolved (split/branched/forked) into thousands and thousands of species. One of those branches was Primates which (very likely unless there was parallel evolution which is not completely out of the question but unlikely) has a single ancestor. This question essentially is saying that grandparents don't exist because we came from our cousins. It makes no sense. +) "Evolution is impossible because of the "perfection" things. Somebody must have designed things!" This is just bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. "Perfection"? How many people have died because of evolved stupidities that no "intelligent" designer would have allowed in? For example we BREATH and EAT through the same tube allowing us to choke. We have vestigial organs like the appendix that serve no purpose but can kill us. Our bodies are symmetrically redundant in some cases (kidneys, eyes, lungs) but not in others (heart, liver, pancreas) even tho a failure of any of the latter is just as deadly. We have the potential for hang-nails and hair stops growing out of our heads and starts growing out of our ears when we hit our 30's. Our reproductive process is fraught with danger and often kills mother and child. Penises, as much as we might enjoy them, just plain look silly. It's my suspicion that if there were an actual designer he's a complete and utter moron. +) "Even assuming billions of years this still isn't enough time for random chance to produce us and all of the other creatures on Earth." Given random chance, no - it's probably not. But Evolution is not a process of random chance. It's a process of laws and (some) predictable outcomes. The (now pretty well understood) basic laws of Chemistry and Physics work to mitigate (and in fact nearly eliminate) elements of "randomness" from the system. Probability handles the rest. You will never see a living helium-based monkey evolve - Helium doesn't allow for that kind of interaction. Most elements don't... but carbon does (and possibly silicon, but thats just conjecture and in any case Carbon is much more versatile than silicon). Yes, there is a measure of randomness in the system. Mutations may cause spurts of very rapid evolution for example and are essentially random (although caused by understood natural processes). However the system itself is far from random. +) "The eye, which is perfect, could never evolve as suggested by Evolutionary Theory because it's too complex and requires all that complexity at once to function." Again, the "Perfect Eye" argument ignores the fact that our eyes are far, far from perfect. The retina is only loosely attached to the orb, for example making it all too easy for it to slip or tear. The eye is incredibly delicate and not very well protected for such an important "design feature". The fluid base of the eye is prone to cataracts and other issues and the eye is not designed for longevity: it looses the ability to gather light and focus as it ages. But the idea that eye could not evolve is what's at issue and that doesn't seem to be true. We find many examples of "proto-eyes" in nature that feature some aspects of our eyes but not all and are beneficial to the organism. This progression includes such useful, but partial steps as light sensitivity, the ability to sense direction of light, the ability to "see" movement, the ability to protect the organ with some type of lid or flap, the ability to "aim" the organ (swivel or move the "eye"), rudimentary lenses, the ability to focus a lens, the ability to see color, non-binocular vision, etc. All of these (and hundreds more) are steps to our type of eye and all are useful to the creatures who possesses them. +) "If evolution is 'right' why aren't we seeing it today?" The simple answer is that we are. We see animals adapting to changing conditions all over the place. Selecting and evolving those specimens best able to survive in the changed environment. Why are we not seeing new species? Well, we might be. There are dozens of new species discovered every day: whose to say they were all here 10 years ago? Also we've not be looking very long. Evolution on Earth occurred over a period of perhaps a billion years. We've been considering our world from this viewpoint for a little over a hundred at best. As far brand new life evolving... well, this could be happening as well. The main problem here is that life already exists here. Any new cocktail of chemicals that approach the level of life will probably approach the level where it would make a nice snack for some life ALREADY here. Lastly we do see evolution occur under controlled laboratory conditions. We see models of the primordial Earth produce simple amino acids. We see things, always, moving in the direction of life - of change and adaptation and... well, evolution. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:160919 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
