|
I don't, and I have a fairly good grasp on what it is. Which is exactly why I don't believe in it. There's too many logical fallacies, absolutely insane odds.
The microevolution part, sure. We've got plenty of evidence for it, we've seen it happen (Darwin's Finches), etc.
So many people say that if I believe microevolution, should I also believe in macro? Of course not. The process is entirely different. Microevolution describes a process whereby a single species makes small changes via forces of natural selection. These changes almost always result in the eventual loss of genetic information as the information needed to create trait X isn't needed. Regardless, natural selection describes a process which, ultimately, leads to genetic information loss. We've never once witnesses a mutation to bring about a beneficial genetic change to a species, unless one has been discovered VERY recently. Almost all mutations result in either early death or sterility, natures way of protecting bad genes from being passed on.
|
I might comment further on what else you've written, but I am studying for exams and don't have the time. I'd be careful with the last sentence. Consider Homo sapiens sapiens for instance. We are continually evolving even now. One of the interesting things is loss of wisdom teeth. Many people don't have their wisdom teeth naturally (I am one of them) and the percentage is increasing (talk to your dentist if you don't believe me). Our jaws are getting smaller, heads bigger and we don't need excess teeth that have long, outgrew their purpose. Another one has to do with ribs. Humans have 12 ribs. Chimpanzees have 13 ribs. 8% of the global population has 13 ribs, and it is a slowly decreasing percentage. Anyways, just thought I would share those two little tidbits. I am a biologist, so I can get into this thread in a big way if I find the time after exams.
*Edit* Guess I should add my two cents about Adam and Eve. Eve is a invention of the King James version of the Bible. The Geneva bible, and I assume the bible versions before it (never researched it further), contains a snake-headed woman who is almost pagan in concept (some have referred to her as the Christian Medusa). Also no reference to the devil 'snake'/apple scene in the Geneva bible either. The snake and Eve were added in the King James version of the bible due to the hostility people had at that time with concepts they considered pagan.
Most amazing jew boots
85242
35212
ionuk tomb