I am a theistic evolutionist, that is, I believe in God yet have no problem reconciling the fact God created the process of evolution. Let me make a run at a few of your positions.
Your statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Natural selection states that those traits that are beneficial to survival or procreation will be passed on more readily and thus be more abundant in future generations. It does not indicate some underlying "gene intelligence" that has a ultimate plan for any given mutation. If a mutation proves beneficial in some meaningful way that allows the possessor to reproduce more readily than the presence of that mutation in future generations will be more prevalent solely for that fact.Zeph wrote:The only problem with that is evolution doesn't make any sense. The reason it doesn't make any sense is because it suggests the impossible.
A creature species has thousands of genetic mistakes, accidents if you will. One of these accidents has the possibility of being favorable if the genetic alterations continue along this line for thousands of years, each generation slowly changing toward this eventual adaptation.
I will give you a readily understandable example...Natural selection can be seen in "peppered" moths living near English industrial cities. These insects have varieties that vary in wing and body coloration from light to dark. During the 19th century, sooty smoke from coal burning furnaces killed the lichen on trees and darkened the bark. When moths landed on these trees, the dark colored ones were harder to spot by birds who ate them and, subsequently, they more often lived long enough to reproduce. Over generations, the environment continued to favor darker moths. As a result, they progressively became more common. By 1895, 98% of the moths in the vicinity of English cities like Manchester were mostly black. Since the 1950's, air pollution controls have significantly reduced the amount of heavy particulate air pollutants reaching the trees. As a result, lichen has grown back, making trees lighter in color. Now, natural selection favors lighter moth varieties so they have become the most common. This trend has been well documented by field studies undertaken between 1959 and 1995 by Sir Cyril Clarke from the University of Liverpool. The same pattern of moth wing color evolutionary change in response to increased and later decreased atmospheric pollution has been carefully documented by other researchers for the countryside around Detroit, Michigan.
You will note that at no point did the peppered moth population go through phases where the entire population turned various rainbow shades in search of the proper color and shading while on the evolutionary path toward a darker color.
It is very easy to throw aspersions or scoff at a particular theory or belief when you constantly mischaracterize the fundamental tenets of the theory in question. You make some of the same mistakes again here:
Kinslaughterer wrote:
Elephants evolved trunks to spray water on themselves and cool off in the progressive hotter African savannah. As the temperature increased and the water level lowered those elephants with the longest trunks survived and the adaptation was passed on by natural selection.
The fallacy inherent in your rebuttal is that elephants would necessarily have had to have possesed a progressively larger useless proboscis for many generations before the final fully functioning trunk was perfected. This is another straw-man argument as evolutionary theory does not make this assertion. Evolution would postulate that trunks evolved in a piecemeal fashion with each stage representing a fully functional appendage with different possible uses. If length of trunk was a valuable trait than trunk length would be selected for and would be more prevelant in future generations. Go back to the peppered moth example and extrapolate.Zeph responded:
Ok, so let's say for the benefit of my doubt, that this was the end result the genes "desired"...
For tens of thousands of years, they had a large nose which was hardly a trunk, was unable to grasp much of anything, and may have been unsuitable for hosing themselves down... For tens of thousands of years this growing appendage would have been useless and would have hampered the survival of the species.
One more example:
Please provide me one source for evolutionary theory that states "genes think of generations" or plan. It is not stated, it is not implied. Your assumption that the theory of evolution assumes thinking genes is a mischaracterization. Once again your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject is rearing it's head. If you cannot provide a source than have the integrity to retract that statement or at least preface it with the words "In my opinion..." so that I won't get your opinions and established facts confused.Zeph wrote: The point is that evolution is silly. It implies that genes think of generations. I am utterly astounded that people who claim to be sane and intelligent will blindly accept anything the media, populace, and education factories pump out such as genes thinking and continuing to change each generation of a species as if it had the end result "creatively planned" out. And then these very same people will say that anyone who believes in God is educationally challenged.
I believe in God and I am not educationally challenged nor do I assert that those who do believe in God are less intelligent... I save those labels for people who have demonstrated their ignorance.
Cheers,
Brinn
