Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:42 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 1:07 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:25 pm
Creationists don't think.
''Evolution is not very precise......'' What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means that we cannot tell what happened to species with good precision. We have different fossils but we don't know what is their exact age so we cannot tell whether there was a subject of intervention or not.
It's worse than that, for the fossil record. One much bigger problem (and one recognized by Evolutionists, who keep trying to explain it) is the lack of the literally billions of transitional forms that ought to be present.
Think about it this way: evolution is a wasteful process. For every organism that proves "adaptive," there have to be billions of chance mutations that result, not in advantage but in survival-disadvantage or no survival relevance at all (like, say, an extra finger or toe, let us imagine). All organisms that have a survival disadvantage should die; and those with survival-neutral mutations must likewise die at some point. And all should be represented in the fossil record, statistically: for there ought to be literally billions and billions of them, so chance mutation can be the process implicated in producing the occasional survival advantage.
Now, Darwin said that survival of the fittest cannot select for anything that does not immediately present a survival advantage. So even the animals that would eventually have a survival advantage, but don't have one right away, cannot be selected-for. So again, that means that there should be billions more animals represented in the fossil record that have mutations of no consequence...like a bump where an extra finger would eventually appear, but is not now.
The question, then, is "Where are they?" Why are only specific species, complete in their own forms, represented in the fossil record, and none of these billions of transitional forms that the theory assumes must have once existed? We should be snowed under with countless such forms, for every one complete specimen we have, if random mutation plus time are the mechanisms that produce evolution.
Something's really missing from that theory. Rather, billions of things are.
You are expressing false thoughts on Darwin. "fitness" in evolution means "matches non-destructively" (in some given environment), not "has some universal IMPROVED quality" (adapted advantage).
The fossil records are destructable and the ancients likely had lots of such evidence that no longer exists because of it. (and is the likely foundation for the Noah's Ark story lost to history). As such, you cannot expect to demonstrate an absolute link in fossils. All that you CAN do is show
supporting examples of inbetween species. But we today have an even better tool: genetics. If you doubt the logic of evolution, you should doubt all of genetics. Is this true of you?
As to examples of evolution of things that have no 'adaptive' advantage, the appendix is the rudimentary stomoch of a prior evolutionary stage that lacks function in us now.
You also err in assuming that any death should occur for evolving from mutations that lack any advantage. All that matters is that the being lives long enough to reproduce sucessfully at least once. If one dies after that due to some destructive mutation, then this does not matter to evolution even if it is potentially hazzardous normally.
One can become popular at some party for some joke they repeated arbitrarily (an environmental 'fitness' specifically for this event). The 'genetic' component here might be their tendency to repeat things they find emotionally arousing, as humor can do, for instance. This trivial genetic factor can be the potential justification for someone to be sexually interested in them and get them laid. They have a baby and whatever genetic tendency regarding simply their ability to live long enough to meet each other AND the 'fitness' of the joke to be relatively funny to the other person suffices.
The peacock's showy feathers, for instance, is actually a relative disadvantage had it not had an 'eyes' design feature that coincidentally makes other animals that might normally be able to catch them with ease run away. The normal predator might be confused thinking that there are many animals with eyes peaking through some hidden shrubs. Then, where the female peacocks may simply be attracted to it for any reason, they mate and pass on the accident of design of peacock plummage. The 'selection' here that exists is that the animals that normally might attempt to eat them misinterpret them as larger than they are. It is merely an illusion though. Thus, the disadvantage of the weight these birds have to handle is cancelled out by the coinciding 'match' of the appearance of being larger that its potential predator thought it was. This is 'fitness' even though there is no necessary 'strength' increase. Had the plummage been just plain sized or without those 'eyes', the bird might have been eaten long before it could have mated.
Note I asked above what others actually know of the theory's
evolution, pun unintended? Do you know what the particular discoveries are that led Darwin to propose the theory?
