You make very valid points with this paragraph. Now, I'm definitely not a scientist, and I often attempt to sound smarter than I actually am. So when I say this, know that it is entirely my opinion.
I think that most of the evidence that supports evolution, in fact, supports just the opposite. That life was indeed created by an intelligent creator. Take for example the interconnectedness on life on Earth. You believe that it means evolution took place. That two fossils containing similar properties means that it must've evolved. I would argue that the interconnectedness is simply proof of a clever creator using a system that works between different species. The fact that our world works as well as it does on it's own is not simply a product of millions of years of chance evolution. The odds against such an idea are staggering. I actually do believe that evolution is real on a micro level. But not on a macro level. Research has shown that mutations are never positive. The few mutations we see today are evidence of that. Take Cancer for example. Cancer is essentially just cellular mutation. Harmful cellular mutation might I add. The concept of an entire species evolving positively into an entirely new species is, frankly, ludicrous. There is absolutely no record of species evolution. I find it hard to believe that evolution, which went on for millions of years to get to the point it's at right now, we have never actually recorded in human history. Why is it that the only evolution we see anymore is in microscopic bacteria and the like? Now, there may be answers for my questions, and I expect GabuEx here to provide them. Like I said, I am no scientist.
KH-mixerX
Interconnectedness shows a clever creator? How?
Humans have a tailbone - the exact same tailbone that chimpanzees have, structurally speaking - yet they have no tail. Why would we have the exact same fundamental skeletal structure as other great apes when we clearly do not have the same bodily structure? Would a clever creator not have created unique skeletal structures to match? Was there a 2-for-1 deal on skeletons and God had some left over? Honest question.
That's not the only example of this, either. Many flightless birds have hollow bones. Why? The benefit of hollow bones is to enable flight, yet these birds cannot fly. And before one wishes to suggest that it might perhaps be the case that they provide an additional benefit that we don't know about, let me additionally point out that there also exist flightless birds that are more distant evolutionary relatives of birds capable of flight, and these flightless birds do not have hollow bones. So what gives? Again, did God just not have enough marrow left over to fill the bones of these flightless birds, or what?
A clever creator would create completely unique animals perfectly tailored, would he not? We certainly have nothing of the sort in life on Earth. Heck, much of our DNA sequence does nothing whatsoever, and serves absolutely no purpose other than simply to bear witness to our evolutionary heritage. Why would God have done all this, if indeed he meticulously built every form of life we have? Did he want us to come to the conclusion that evolution is true, or what?
And as for macroevolution, I'm going to assume that you would agree with the idea that a workable definition of a species is a group of animals that may interbreed. If that is the case, then consider the case of ring species. Ring species are geographically connected groups of animals that are similar, but clearly different at the same time. At every single boundary, the two groups of animals straddling the boundary can interbreed fine. However, when you take an animal from the start of the ring and an animal from the end of the ring, they cannot interbreed. In other words, ring species provide a clear and undeniable progression of evolution, at each of which stage the animals can interbreed, but clearly producing two different species of animals at the start and end who cannot interbreed. And this is exactly what has happened in Earth's evolutionary history, only on a much grander scale.
No offense, but the idea that all mutations are negative is false. In fact, most mutations are more or less benign. Take our inability to synthesize vitamin C, for example. Obviously, we are not dead, despite the fact that we cannot synthesize vitamin C while other animals can. This mutation was not removed from the gene pool for the simple reason that, while not beneficial, it was not negative, either, so it just sort of went along for the ride.
Oh, and cancer is not an example of genetic mutation, which is the type of mutation that drives evolution. Genetic mutation occurs when the DNA in an animal's offspring is altered at a very early stage such that it is different from either of its parents', thereby producing different physiological effects when that offspring grows and matures.
I like your analogy at the end of that bolded paragraph. I'm a big fan of analogies. Which is why I'm going to use one right now to close out this post.
When you look at any object or appliance in the modern household today, it's an automatic fact that someone had to of made it. It doesn't need to be debated. A universal truth. Now, a machine is very different from biological tissue, I know. So don't bother pointing it out to me. But why is it that the human body, which is made up of trillions of cells each more complex than a factory the size of a city, can carry the label of random chance? Shouldn't it be assumed that someone had to of made it as well? Humans evolving from a pile of primordial goo is akin to a mother board plugged into a wall evolving into a super computer. It's just not possible. And even if it was...Let's just assume for a moment that it is possible. The human form came into existence completely by chance. This would mean that all of it's complexities such as the brain and central nervous system that all work together in perfect order to keep it alive just randomly happened by chance over millions of years. I'm sorry, but I reject that concept.
KH-mixerX
But it's not random chance. That's one of the most common misconceptions about evolution, and it's just not true. It's not random chance any more than things falling down is random chance. When a mutation occurs, it is either beneficial, negative, or benign, which evolutionarily speaking means that it makes the animal possessing the mutation either more, less, or no more and no less able to survive and reproduce than its peers. If the mutation makes it less able to survive and reproduce, then it is an evolutionary dead end, and slowly (or quickly, depending on how bad it is) is removed from the gene pool. If the mutation makes it more able to survive and reproduce, then it will be gradually propagated over several generations into the population at large, as the animal possessing it will survive and reproduce at a greater rate than those who don't possess it. (And, of course, if it's benign, then it just has no effect at all.)
The actual mutations themselves are unpredictable, but the process that selects them for either propagation or removal is far, far from random chance. The whole "whirlwind through a hangar making a plane" analogy just plain fundamentally misunderstands evolution. It is not just a sudden event, like a skunk suddenly giving birth to a dog, but rather is a very, very gradual process that has progressed over millions and millions of years. And we have found thousands and thousands of fossils of animals that bridge apparent gaps, too, such as Tiktaalik, which was likely part of the bridge between fish and amphibians.
And though you already alluded to the fact that humans and machines are different, let me just state for the record what that difference is, since it's absolutely fundamental: machines are not capable of self-replication. That is the fundamental, most important difference that shoots down any analogy that compares humans to an inorganic compound incapable of self-replication. Because life is capable of self-replication, life gains the ability to slowly, gradually change over millions of years as imperfect replications are created. Motherboards can't evolve into supercomputers because silicon, gold, steel, and all the other compounds that make them up are static, and cannot reproduce.
Log in to comment