Evolution Again?

Question

Exactly! The fossil record shows stasis and stability not the 'preexisting spieces. Have you ever thought that the similarity of the genetic code could be because it is a stable, broad gene pool created by one supernatural artist? Not a unstable, often mutating gene pool that is not supported by the fossil record. Sorry, you are working off the theory of inherited characteristics that was disproved before Darwin's time. Darwin even knew that once a parent inherits a charateristic they cannot pass it on. If the parents pierce their ear, does the baby come out with pierced ears... No they dont. Please, I need solid evidence.

Answer 1

Sorry, the fossil record does NOT show stasis. It shows periods of stasis followed by periods of change and diversification (branching of new species, and new genera). There ARE transitional forms in the fossil record. But a form can stay static for millions of years, and then undergo significant change (documented by transitional forms) as a result of changing selective pressures (climate change, new predators, scarcity of resources, etc.)

You also misunderstand the genetic evidence. It is not just a blanket "similarity" between species A and B, but that A is MORE similar to B than it is to C, and that this similarity can be *quantified* ... and a map of relations can be drawn from the point of view of any organism (not just humans). These relationships show the same exact patterns as the fact that you are separated by 1 generation from your brother (you have the same father), and 3 generations from your second cousin (you have the same great-grandfather). The very same methods can take *any* two living organisms, and estimate how many generations apart they are.

A third problem is that you underestimate the molecular evidence which is under the genetic. Most DNA does not code for genes. It is in this DNA that we can see (and count) similarities and differences that have nothing to do with the function of the organism. Why would a "supernatural artist" put in such molecular similarities that are unrelated to function?

Fourth, you also underestimate how this molecular and genetic evidence correlates *perfectly* with the fossil record. E.g. it is through molecular evidence that we have a "molecular clock" that estimates that humans diverged from the other primates about 6 million years ago ... and this correlates exactly to when this branching appears in the fossil record.

Could all this be the product of one "supernatural artist"? Of course. But that produces a *more* complex explanation, not a simpler one! Common descent produces a simple explanation of all these facts (fossil record, genetic similarities, molecular similarities, the patterns of similarities, the correlation between them all) that requires no new entity. The "supernatural artist" hypothesis introduces a new entity. This entity is far MORE complex than anything it is supposed to explain. Science does not introduce a far more complex "supernatural" element to explain perfectly "natural" phenomena, when a simple and perfectly "natural" explanation (common descent) explains all the evidence perfectly.

Finally, where on earth did you get the silly notion that"the theory of inherited characteristics" was "disproved before Darwin's time"??? That's called GENETICS. And it is a science solidly developed AFTER Darwin's time. Are you denying that characteristics are inherited???

You wrote: "Darwin even knew that once a parent inherits a charateristic they cannot pass it on." Darwin didn't know any such thing because it is trivially FALSE. And you know that. OF COURSE you can pass on a characteristic that you inherited. Darwinian theory absolutely depends on the passing on of inherited characteristics ... but it that is trivially TRUE.

From your pierced-ears example it it seems that you are confusing "inherited characteristics" with *acquired* characteristics. That's very different. The inheritance of acquired characteristics *was* disproved ... but it plays no part in Darwinian theory, and never has.

And if the gene pool is so "stable", then why do we need a different flu shot every year? The fact that this year's flu viruses are resistant to last-year's flu shot, demonstrates that those viruses do not have anything close to a "stable" gene pool. They are mutating constantly ... introducing new genetic material into the gene pool constantly.

Answer 2

From Adam and Eve up till the time that the Mosaic guidelines were written, marriages interior of households grow to be ideal because the genes were nonetheless in a more beneficial or a lot less pristine state so no mutations were plausible and no one concept some thing of it. commute down in time to Moses. the international on the instantaneous had gotten more beneficial and larger sinful and corrupt for this reason began to deprave humanity to the middle. Intermarriage grow to be now no longer plausible using mutations brought about through the fairly sinful nature of guy so God said guidelines hostile to it for this reason making it a sin to marry ones personal relative. The note we use immediately is incest.

Answer 3

You talk of a "theory of inherited characteristics" that you say has been disproved and then talk about non-inherited acquired characteristics. If you have a characteristic you EITHER inherit it or acquire it.

Was that a typo?

Answer 4

Evolution will not stand up to serious examination. What you have pointed out is only one of a myriad of reasons. Good question!