Origin of the species, where do you stand?

[happythoughts 0]

Flying Spagetti Monster

Satire:
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

If someone makes up a being and then credits it with creating the universe, the supporters of the current being get very irate (even though the new being uses exactly the same arguments for its existence).

I suppose that I would be mad also.

[Royd 0]

Quote

YOU choose not to look at the evidence which is why YOU don't see it. YOU choose to misinterpret the science, over and over, even when the patient Billvon explains it to you. Your arguments are just silly and ignorant, not scientific rebuttals.

I have been to Dinosaur National Monument and the Florissant Fossil beds. I've seen fossilized tree stumps 15' in diameter at 10,000 ft elevation.

All of this shit didn't happen 1/4 inch at a time. A whole lot of stuff happened real fast. Not an occasional little volcano here or there.

Have you been to the Big Bend in Tx? There are arroyas 40' deep in compressed volcanic ash.

I just don't buy the statements that a mouse can become an elephant, or a reptile can become a mammal. Personally, I just think that he is punching buttons.

If you could live long enough and sit under a live oak, not one acorn that sprouts will ever become anything but a live oak. It definitely will not become a pine tree or any of the plants that are growing in my garden.
I also understand cross pollination. If you don't want the possibility of hot bell peppers, don't plant them next to the habeneros, but I will surely never get a zuchinni with a scoville rating of 700,000.

[billvon 2,400]

>All of your following names and ages tell me nothing . . .

No problem! Google is a great tool.

>honestly, I doubt if they mean anything to you.

At one point, the terms meeker, yuan and snowflake meant nothing to me either. We all learn with time.

>I thought that it was stated earlier that we didn't even evolve from
>apes. We only had a common ancestor. Was that a hairy crocidile?

Nope, it was a primate. Looked more like a chimpanzee than a human, from the fossil record.

> Do you believe that any species had held the line against radical
>change through the eons?

A few. Cyanobacteria haven't changed much. Archaea are still about the same, because their environments haven't changed much. But most have adapted to some degree - four billion years is a long time. Heck, you couldn't survive in the world four billion years ago; not suprising adaptation has happened.

[billvon 2,400]

> Sorry, but I should be able to look out my door and see animals in all
>stages of transition from one species to another, and from one genus to
> another.

OK. Let's look at a bunch of animals in various stages of adaptation to a new environment:

Rodents. (think rats.) They live on land, but can swim if they have to.

Sea otters. Land animals that can live in the ocean for much of their lives. Similar to rodents, but adapted to living in water.

Next stage - sea lions. Can still walk on their front and rear legs, but they've become primarily aquatic animals; their bodies are optimized for living in water.

Next stage - seals. Can't walk any more, but can inchworm around on land. They spend most of their lives in the water.

Next stage - manatees. They can no longer live on land, but still have arms and legs. They're close to fully evolved to live in water full time.

Next stage - dolphins. Their hind legs are gone (at least visibly; they still have some internal structures.) Their front legs have become flippers.

Most of these animals can be seen at a decent aquarium. You may not be able to see them out your front door, but you can see them all in a few hours.

>After all, nature, or would that be mother nature, has had millions, or is
>it billions of years to put the whole thing into motion.

And it all still _is_ in motion, fortunately!

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Some people believe knowledge is good just for the sake of knowledge.

I guess that is not common.. but it certainly has enriched my life

Oh! Plato's Republic, Book VII, The Cave allegory.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[billvon 2,400]

>If I jump out of an airplane without a shirt on enough times then the
>skin under my arms should become loose and floppy . . .

Uh, no. Why would it do that? If you jump out of an airplane without a shirt your skin will merely flop around. If you jump without a shirt or a parachute you will just plain die.

>and if I breed a bunch of women, one my offspring should come out
>with very loose skin under his or her arms.

Again, no. Why would that happen?

>After several generations wing suits will not be needed. From there, by
>the logic of Billvon's evolutionary theory, eventually feathers will begin to
>develop. Soon, my offspring wouldn't even need a parachute.

>Am I on the right track. Go evolution!!

Nope, completely wrong.

Here's how such an evolution would take place:

You would jump without a parachute. You would die.

Billions of other people would jump without parachutes. They would all die.

Eventually, some freak of nature (6' 6" tall, 120 pounds) would jump, and would land in a tree. He would survive, barely - but he would reproduce. No one else would; heck, they're all dead!

The next generation would be 6 foot plus people, all weighing about 120 pounds. This isn't because evolution "knows" to produce light people, but because all the heavier people are dead, and dead people don't reproduce. Some of these people would be smart enough to track towards trees, and would be tall/light enough to survive. The lightest/tallest/smartest ones of this next generation would survive, the rest would not.

Do this for ten million years, and you'd have a race of people who were all ten feet tall, weighed 80 pounds, and could survive landing in a tree without much injury. Sure, they wouldn't be able to do much else - but in your example, they don't have to. All they have to do is survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.

In the real world, we DO have parachutes, so being able to survive a terminal freefall without a parachute isn't much of a survival characteristic - which is why we aren't 10 foot tall stick figures.

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

In the real world, we DO have parachutes, so being able to survive a terminal freefall without a parachute isn't much of a survival characteristic - which is why we aren't 10 foot tall stick figures.

On the other hand, "fitness" is never defined in the theory of natural selection and the survival of the fittest.

It's all relative.

At this point in time it appears species Homo Sapien have developed tool skills and intellect to address the fitness issue. Don't need to evolve wings if you're smart enough to design planes and parachutes.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess that even if a nobel prize winner would try to explain to you things in simple english, you would not understand - or rather - you would not want to understand, if it was against your belief system.

I was told the same stuff you obviously were in school. I just don't necessarily buy into everything my college professor (or anyone for that matter) put out just b/c he had a PhD beside his/her name. There are plenty of others with that same title who have posed very real and critical problems with the theory. If you want to believe it, that's fine.

Quote

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."

Ok. So you talk about fish and then you think next step would be --- tzadaa ---- a land animal with fully developed lungs.

You know there are (still living) fish there with lungs. There are animals that can get oxygen either from water or from the air.

Oh... And about species becoming new ones. There are a lot of examples of these.

Have you ever seen a horse?

Have you ever seen a dunkey?

Are they the same species?

Can they reproduce?

Can their offspring (say you mix the two) reproduce?

This is just ONE simple example...

You said that you don't automatically believe what Ph.D professors are saying.

I say: I don't let an old (2000-4000 years old) mythology (the old testament) stop me from thinking with my own brains - guess what, many people and churches agree. Gee! Even the vatican (talking about a conservative church) thinks ID and creationism has nothing to do with science... But I guess you much rather believe "scientists" with an religious agenda. "Scientist" that have made a fairy tale to support their own belief system.

Like I said - if you want to believe that the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe, you are welcome to do so. However, we arë not talking about science at that point. If the vatican can separate the two, one would thing think that most of the christians would be able to do likewise...

Let's be honest here. Try to picture yourself non-christian w/o any influence of the bible or your religion. Would you still feel that the theory of evolution is rubbish? - Come on, now! Be honest!

[Royd 0]

Quote

Rodents. (think rats.) They live on land, but can swim if they have to.

So can me and my dog. Nothing new there. Water is a hostile environment for any land based mammal. No matter how well they can swim, if left there long enough, it will kill them.

Quote

Sea otters. Land animals that can live in the ocean for much of their lives. Similar to rodents, but adapted to living in water.

They were simply designed to do what they do. They look rather awkward on land.

Quote

Next stage - manatees. They can no longer live on land, but still have arms and legs. They're close to fully evolved to live in water full time

I doubt if those lumbering sea cows ever walked on land. They are designed to float and consume water plants so that boaters don't get all of those weeds in their props.

Quote

Next stage - dolphins. Their hind legs are gone (at least visibly; they still have some internal structures.) Their front legs have become flippers.

Their body design was designed for thirty mph sprints. On the west coast of Fl. I got to watch three dolphins herd mullet into a shallow cove, hold them there, and decimate them. Pretty cool. They are obviously intelligent. Too intellegent to want to do it on land.

The picture that you present is that everything at one time was some bumbling creature that couldn't get out of its own way until suddenly, by some stroke of luck, it finally hit its stride.

An architect doesn't, with intention, start out to design a bungalow and wind up with a skyscraper, nor does he design a functioning community and winds up with a mud hut.

The whole, everything used to be something else, mentality flies in the face of common sense, logic, and reasoning.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Have you ever seen a horse?

Have you ever seen a dunkey?

Are they the same species?

Can they reproduce?

Can their offspring (say you mix the two) reproduce?

Are there any cases of two mules mating and producing an offspring?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Do this for ten million years, and you'd have a race of people who were all ten feet tall, weighed 80 pounds, and could survive landing in a tree without much injury. Sure, they wouldn't be able to do much else - but in your example, they don't have to. All they have to do is survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.

I don't have a problem with genetic selection. We see it every time a new creature[ there's that damned word, again] is born.

We keep the good looking calf to help propagate the herd and send the runt to market.

As per your example, we still wind up with the same species, only with variations.
Once we have a variation that we like, we must isolate it from further cross breeding, which tends to lead to its own set of problems.

Here's a serious question. You say that dogs came from wolves. Would it be possible to reverse breed them and get wolves from dogs?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Their body design was designed for thirty mph sprints. On the west coast of Fl. I got to watch three dolphins herd mullet into a shallow cove, hold them there, and decimate them. Pretty cool. They are obviously intelligent. Too intellegent to want to do it on land.

To do what on land? Some dolphins and killer whales use their bulk to create waves that push fish and small seals up onto beaches where they can be easily picked off. Its a risky tactic but it works far more often than they get beached.

Quote

An architect doesn't, with intention, start out to design a bungalow and wind up with a skyscraper, nor does he design a functioning community and winds up with a mud hut.

What architect? What intention? You're letting your religious prejudices get in the way of understanding what evolutionary theory actually is.

A couple of phrases come to mind about 'casting pearls' and 'none so blind' - d'ya know how those go?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

To do what on land? Some dolphins and killer whales use their bulk to create waves that push fish and small seals up onto beaches where they can be easily picked off. Its a risky tactic but it works far more often than they get beached.

And if they do get beached they are SOL until a higher tide comes in.

[skysaintj 0]

Quote

Quote

Rodents. (think rats.) They live on land, but can swim if they have to.

So can me and my dog. Nothing new there. Water is a hostile environment for any land based mammal. No matter how well they can swim, if left there long enough, it will kill them.

Quote

Sea otters. Land animals that can live in the ocean for much of their lives. Similar to rodents, but adapted to living in water.

They were simply designed to do what they do. They look rather awkward on land.

Quote

Next stage - manatees. They can no longer live on land, but still have arms and legs. They're close to fully evolved to live in water full time

I doubt if those lumbering sea cows ever walked on land. They are designed to float and consume water plants so that boaters don't get all of those weeds in their props.

Quote

Next stage - dolphins. Their hind legs are gone (at least visibly; they still have some internal structures.) Their front legs have become flippers.

Their body design was designed for thirty mph sprints. On the west coast of Fl. I got to watch three dolphins herd mullet into a shallow cove, hold them there, and decimate them. Pretty cool. They are obviously intelligent. Too intellegent to want to do it on land.

The picture that you present is that everything at one time was some bumbling creature that couldn't get out of its own way until suddenly, by some stroke of luck, it finally hit its stride.

An architect doesn't, with intention, start out to design a bungalow and wind up with a skyscraper, nor does he design a functioning community and winds up with a mud hut.

The whole, everything used to be something else, mentality flies in the face of common sense, logic, and reasoning.

Just to back that up

Basically there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence.

Everyone should understand that both creationism and evolutionism are forensic models of history. Creationists and evolutionists both have the same evidences at their disposal; the same fossils, the same rocks, the same trees, and the same strata layers. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence....so yet again a few things to consider


10 MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION

1.The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.
7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.
8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.
9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.


Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

YOU choose not to look at the evidence which is why YOU don't see it. YOU choose to misinterpret the science, over and over, even when the patient Billvon explains it to you. Your arguments are just silly and ignorant, not scientific rebuttals.

I have been to Dinosaur National Monument and the Florissant Fossil beds. I've seen fossilized tree stumps 15' in diameter at 10,000 ft elevation.

All of this shit didn't happen 1/4 inch at a time. A whole lot of stuff happened real fast. Not an occasional little volcano here or there.

Have you been to the Big Bend in Tx? There are arroyas 40' deep in compressed volcanic ash.

I just don't buy the statements that a mouse can become an elephant, or a reptile can become a mammal. Personally, I just think that he is punching buttons.

If you could live long enough and sit under a live oak, not one acorn that sprouts will ever become anything but a live oak. It definitely will not become a pine tree or any of the plants that are growing in my garden.
I also understand cross pollination. If you don't want the possibility of hot bell peppers, don't plant them next to the habeneros, but I will surely never get a zuchinni with a scoville rating of 700,000.

Try investigating the natural evolution of wheat (42 chromosomes) from wild einkorn (14 chromosomes). Modern bread wheat doesn't appear until well after humans are on the scene. Real evidence of natural selection in action, with emmer as a transitional form.

You are just plain WRONG.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Just to back that up

Thanks.I think that they think that they have found a whipping boy.

[jakee 1,255]

Flipping through a site that was linked in another thread, I found something relevant to this discussion too. Idrewthis

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I just don't buy the statements that a mouse can become an elephant, or a reptile can become a mammal. Personally, I just think that he is punching buttons.

If you could live long enough and sit under a live oak, not one acorn that sprouts will ever become anything but a live oak. It definitely will not become a pine tree or any of the plants that are growing in my garden.

Absolutely correct. But that is not what evolutionary theory says.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It's a trick I learned from mnealtx and rushmcWink

LOL!

We are all engines of karma

[SpeedRacer 1]

One problem with creationists:

If evolution is not the explanation for the development of different species, then what physical events actually took place???

They don't have an answer for this. And they seem completely uninterested in proposing one.

And before you fundie-atheists jump in about how stupid Christians are, let me point out that even Pope John Paul II accepted evolutionary theory. He was smart enough to understand that there is a place for describing spiritual truths, and another place for describing physical phenomena.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

spiritual truths

That phrase, in and of itself, is presumptuous. Some would view it as an oxymoron.
At best, characterizing faith in spirituality in terms of truth or falsity is a fool's errand.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't know about anyone else, but for me the last few pages of posts from Billvon are exactly what make this forum worth reading.

The patience to address all opposing points with elegant answers that are clear, concise, brilliantly illustrated and obviously backed up with a strong body of knowledge.

Maybe I'm not so easily impressed.

I've heard that a mouse can become an elephant, and a reptile can become a mammal.

Sorry, but I should be able to look out my door and see animals in all stages of transition from one species to another, and from one genus to another. After all, nature, or would that be mother nature, has had millions, or is it billions of years to put the whole thing into motion.

It just ain't happenin'.

I want to see proof in hand, kind of like atheists want to see proof of God.

Serious question with which I mean no offense:

Why is a single book on God (Holy Bible) sufficient as evidence of creation, but hundreds (thousands?) of books on evolutionary theory not sufficient?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

>Water is a hostile environment for any land based mammal.

Not so for hippos, sea otters, crocodiles etc. There are a great many animals comfortable in both.

>They were simply designed to do what they do. They look rather
>awkward on land.

That's right. They have adapted to live in both water and on land. They found a niche that works for them and evolved to fit well into that niche.

>I doubt if those lumbering sea cows ever walked on land.

Hmm. Then why do their front arms still have claws? Why do they still have pelvises (which sea animals don't need) and salivary glands (which sea animals definitely don't need?)

Compare them to hippos. Hippos still lumber out of the water on occasion, so they have kept (tiny) rear legs that can just barely cart them around on land. Manatees never do, so they have started eliminating the structures that enable them to walk.

>The picture that you present is that everything at one time was some
> bumbling creature that couldn't get out of its own way until
> suddenly, by some stroke of luck, it finally hit its stride.

?? No, not at all. Since the beginning of evolution, creatures have been evolving to fit niches that appear (and disappear) based on changes in climate, shoreline, temperature, available food etc. If species could not evolve to adapt to these changes, they would die. Evolution provides them a way to adapt.

Go back a few million years, and picture a bunch of hippos living on a small chain of islands. Over time, the islands sink, and the available living area becomes smaller and smaller. Most of the hippos die; they can't live in the water all the time. Some are born with slightly better lungs, slightly flatter feet (better for swimming) and these survive a bit better.

When those islands finally do disappear below the water, the only animals that will survive will be animals that look more like manatees than hippos.

Does that mean that hippos suck? That they "can't get out of their own way?" Of course not. But for _these_ hippos, adapting to an aquatic environment meant survival.

>An architect doesn't, with intention, start out to design a bungalow
>and wind up with a skyscraper, nor does he design a functioning
>community and winds up with a mud hut.

That is EXACTLY right. And that's probably the best possible argument for there not BEING an architect for evolution. No planner planned for the ichneumon wasp, an animal that lays its eggs on caterpillars only to have its young eat the caterpillar from the inside out, leaving the brain and heart for last (so the caterpillar can survive as long as possible.) And I'm glad - I wouldn't want to exist with a creator that is that unimaginably cruel.

No planner planned HIV, or diptheria, or dystentery, or smallpox. They just evolved to fit niches that were open to them.

No planner planned for humans to have huge heads and small pelvises, thus making human birth massively painful. That's just how things ended up. Not ideal, but it (usually) works.

No planner planned for us to have backwards eyes, where the wiring is in _front_ of the image sensor, leading to blind spots and easily detached retinas. Just happened to evolve that way.

If there was an architect somewhere designing elegant skyscrapers we'd all BE elegant skyscrapers, not the assembly of compromises that we (and indeed all animals) have become.

>The whole, everything used to be something else, mentality flies in
>the face of common sense, logic, and reasoning.

Why? Take a look at your feet. They used to be hands. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that happened.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Serious question with which I mean no offense:

Why is a single book on God (Holy Bible) sufficient as evidence of creation, but hundreds (thousands?) of books on evolutionary theory not sufficient?

When someone tries so hard to prove a point, my little red flag goes up.

[billvon 2,400]

>Would it be possible to reverse breed them and get wolves from dogs?

Definitely. You could breed dogs to look like wolves and you'd get something that looked very much like a wolf. It wouldn't be the same genetically any more (too many changes over the years that we introduced to get the dog) but it would be close.