[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by user
Where the hell do you get this from? And macro evolution and micro evoltuion are the exact same procersses, only macro evoltion is over more time. People usually differentiate between them so they can discount the evoltuion and adaptation we can observe happen within our lifetime as mere "micro evoltion" when its all evoltion and is the same drivig force.

Wrong, see below. You need to do quite a bit more research, I thought you knew what you were talking about.

The envoronment doesnt have to become sentient to choose, give me a break. I am so tempted to just start calling you stupid names at this point. The environment doesnt stop and think 'lets see who will die today', the envronment is simply necesarily more suitable for one adaptaion and less suitable for another.

So what caused the first land animal? Why did that animal suddenly decide to sprout legs and walk around? Why did the enviroment choose that time, that place, and that animal to evolve? Why not all animals? And you can't really start calling anybody names when you can't even spell them correctly.

“Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]

Why does the theory fall apart on chance? The theory was made by chance! The chance that a certain adaptation will survive or not in a certain environment. Do you understand at all? Is any of this getting through to you? I'm about ready to stop trying to argue when you reply with shit like this.

My thoughts exactly. Your view is obviously far too narrow. You say its run on chance, so why isn't there any losing? Amino acids and their arrangements alone ruin the idea that everything happens on mere chance. Refer back to my analogies of the sand in the tubes. You agree that the chances of both sands becoming perfectly un-mixed is around 0%, so how can you explain when Evolution goes exactly against this probability? How do you account for this, besides saying "Oh well, the enviroment just 'decides' it." Right.

Evolution is just something that has to happen.

Why?

There is life and death, and environment that helps decide who lives and who dies.

So now the Enviroment, which is not sentient, is making decisions? I thought this was based off the animal that is becoming extinct or evolving, not the enviroment? Use the Dinosaurs into birds idea...why did they evolve? What enviromental changes would cause this?

I'm starting to think you are putting up blinders, because theses are som simple ideas that you aren't getting.

I get and understand all of them. You're trying to explain who evolution works, I already KNOW how it works. I'm asking WHY does it work? You still have no answer for this.

Traits are determined by genes, do you admit this much? A tall mom and tall dad will be much more likely to have a tall child. Understand? If for some reason humans who were taller could reproduce easier or survive easier then there would be more tall people. IS any of this making sense? Please tell me that you at least understand that much. [/b]

Simple genetics does not make evolution correct. "If for some reason" doesn't hold up, especially in Science. Everything needs reason (study Cause and Effect sometime). Essentially, Evolution states there is no cause, just an effect. If a certain species "needs" to evolve, it just does. Once again (for the millionth time), I'm merely trying to get you to see that Evolution is lacking one very large and integral piece of the puzzle: the reason it even exists. At least with Creationism, you have a source, an ultimate cause for all the effects. With Evolution, the cause is pure chance. One day, a certain species starts to evolve, with no particular reason why. You say it's all dependent on the enviroment, but that doens't hold up for all evolutionary events. You keep bringing up genetics and simple procreation, but that's not jumping from one species to another. Yes, I understand it's a stepping stone, but the ultimate problem is, there's no reason to take that step! The earth isn't much different than it was millions of years ago, aside from the damage and changes we've done to it.

And once again, where's the evolution now? Where's the stepping stones? Why have we still remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, despite the enviromental changes? Why has every animal around us also remain unchanged? Why aren't new species being created? Why does the fossil record indicate gaps and spaces, where there should not be? Why is the abundance of fossils suddenly decreasing, when it should be increasing? Where are all, if ANY of the Transitional Fossils that were supposed to be found 50 years ago?

You keep saying "I don't get it" when you keep looking past my entire point. I'm not asking you for a step-by-step on Evolution, I'm well aware of how it functions. But instead of going back and forth, here is an excerpt from an article that supplements exactly what I mean:

“Evolution Has Never Been Observed”

Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”

Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak apparently wants us to joing him in simplistically believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t corroborate Isaak’s story.

As for Isaak’s “example” of insects and pesticide resistance, this author knows of no work in genetics that has conclusively shown such changes to be anything more than the natural adaptive variation (described above) arising from the existing genetic potential already present in the population’s existing pool. Again, adaptive (and even non-adaptive) variations abound in the natural world, but they are not the genuine gene pool changes (i.e., additions of unequivocally new and meaningful genetic information) required by true evolutionary theory.

Honestly, I'll continue this when you study both sides of the coin. You sound like me before I started really questioning things.