Creation vs Evolution

[Kralizec]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

[Zain]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

[rory_20_uk]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

[rory_20_uk]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

[Zain]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

I didn't know that. That's interesting.

[Zain]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

[rory_20_uk]

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.



The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.