the theory of evolution is not a theory of origin.
which makes your post totally irrelevant.
with that said, even the theory of the primordial soup(its a different theory then evolution, as its about the origin) is more likely then a creator:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2865903/Scientists-create-lifes-spark.html
seems like they are in fact successful at reproducing some of the required parts. and as time passes science will continue to be successful.
ThenFuckit stated: source post
the theory of evolution is not a theory of origin.
which makes your post totally irrelevant.
with that said, even the theory of the primordial soup(its a different theory then evolution, as its about the origin) is more likely then a creator:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2865903/Scientists-create-lifes-spark.htmlseems like they are in fact successful at reproducing some of the required parts. and as time passes science will continue to be successful.
Nice article. I especially like the part that says and I quote:
"The findings do not prove that this is how life started on Earth about 4 billion years ago, and some scientists were unimpressed with the results."
and
"From these bases, there are many still-mysterious steps that must happen for life to emerge. But this is a potential starting point in that process."
ThenFuckit stated: source post
I think the mechanisms of evolution explain the species diversity/existence given the time it took for species to form.
The variation in nature is too damn huge to put it on simply "trial and error" breeding projects. There was a time in when a whole bunch of new animals appeared and showed a huge amount of variety within a very short timespan that can't be explained simply by random mutation+natural selection without any help or at least, other phenomena not discovered yet that guide evolutionism. Check out the Cambrian Explosion. I am not saying this proves a creator in any way. However, it proves that there is a rule missing in the whole mechanism of evolution as it is explained today imo. As in, organisms somehow "knowing" in advance to choose a speedy mutation path to achieve better adaptation.
jfyi, its not every little feature is gained by chance and all the other individuals who didn't have it died off or didn't reproduce, there are many small genetic differences between individuals in the same species and there are recessive genes and genes that only some individuals of a species have, etc.
its called a gene pool, another mechanism of evolution.
I'm not talking about genetic differences between individuals but the common traits. I am talking about minor common features than only help to a small extent in life, without it having been a life or death or breeding decider. I don't know, like eyebrows. They are useful, keep sweat out of our eyes and stuff, but not having them wouldn't have resulted in any death. Yet we lost a lot of hair, but the eyebrows stuck around.
Lack of diversity happens bc of "Founder Effect"
It's what happens when a majority of a population is wiped out, leaving a very limited gene pool.
http://wallace.genetics.uga.edu/groups/evol3000/wiki/fb221/Bottlenecks_and_Founder_Effects.html
Rapid changes in diversity usually happen bc of large scale environmental changes.
A simple, pinpointed example of one species adapting to one type of selective pressure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf-mOCN7rUU
Now imagine the changes that would occur within 200 years after a ring of dormant volcanoes went active due to continental drift, or a meteor strike or some other cataclysm.
Remember the things that washed up in 2004 after the tsunami?
Eek. Hair.
I'd have to google to give you more than a half assed explanation for that, so ask haart if my answer is off.
Our hair is where it is bc we need it there to protect against parasites.
0_o
* Edit: I decided to google anyway.
http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5676/why-does-human-facial-and-head-hair-continue-to-grow
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hair-only-in-some-places/
Mate selection could also have smthg to do with patterns of hair growth on humans, just as it affects the natural adornments on other creatures.
Didn't see anything in that article about parasites, but I did hear it on a CBC special many years ago. Some points of human evolution grossed me out a little. Insects. Ew. Diseases. Ew. (So pardon me if I'm done googling lol )
But it all has an impact on how we function.
Xena stated: source post
Mate selection could also have smthg to do with patterns of hair growth on humans, just as it affects the natural adornments on other creatures.
Yeah, and this preference for mates with certain features evolved by selection too, didn't it? As in, all the creatures choosing mates without that feature died or something, and only the ones who preferred that feature got to reproduce. Just imagine the time that would need for smth like eyebrows. I can't even imagine how that worked. Were there specimens who kept patches of hair on the forehead for example, and all over the place, but only those with the patches for eyebrows got to mate? And why, it's not like not having eyebrows would kill you. 100% random mutation plus natural selection is a bit puzzling to think about.
6 million years is a long time.
You're also forgetting how phenotypic variation gets passed through the breeding process.
We turned only 6 naturally occurring breeds of dogs into hundreds in roughly 30 000 years, through selective breeding.
So yeah, in 6 million years, with environmental factors like temperature playing off of epidemics and infestations, plus mate preferences rounding out the process of our hair migration, I can imagine the changes to humans all happening naturally. No divine intervention required.
"it's not like not having eyebrows would kill you."
It could if the wrong parasites were to get into your eyeballs and make a nest.
You're not bullshitting about being from a cold country, eh?
I've seen things in places where there are no winters... 0_o
Also, as I was saying, science can't always explain the things that we and other creatures find attractive in a mate.
Like who wants to look up at a sexual partner with a furry forehead? Or no eyebrows at all...
Not on my list of hotness, thx.
Edvard stated: source post
My q is, why don't you think a Creator created life by allowing and guiding it to evolve? By influencing the chance of mutation? Why does there to be a separation between creationism and evolutionism?
I see where I have failed... A Sovereign G-d as Creator doesn't eliminate creationism... just the opposite... I think the hand of G-d pushed a bunch of amino acids together and smacked it with lightening... more than once... right here on this planet...
Now, please don't picture a giant human hand doing this... my point is IF evolution is the means by which He created... the statistical probability of this being an accident goes away... if lightening struck a billion times and created a billion different little life organisms... then they all mutated... do to situations that are basically improbable.... sounds like G-d is the answer to the math... Creation an answer to the means... but we will never KNOW the truth, whole truth, and nothing but...
