Doubters of Evolution

[Gonzo]

I pose to you a hypothetical situation.

There are several assumptions which are known as facts that must be taken into account first though.

1) Genetic mutations exist (or at the very least accept that there are large amounts of varying genetics throughout a population). Examples would be varying eye color, hair color, and a variety of others regarding almost every aspect of an organism.

2) These mutations are coded for within DNA and can be passed down to offspring.

3) When mutations are selected for they have can "stacking up" effect to some degree, as we would see with dog breeding. (for example the breeding of bloodhounds with extremely sensitive sense of scent).


Now for my example lets say we take individuals from a human population and select for traits, much like animal breeding. We select for individuals with an extended tail bone/spine and continue to select for them throughout the generations. Based upon the above assumptions you will eventually have a group of individuals with an appendage much like a tail. Now if we select for smaller body size and body hair as well, we have something that looks very much like a monkey, but it wouldn't be and it would most likely still be able to breed with the regular human population. However, if you select for certain traits regarding sexual reproduction, specifically the acidity of the vagina and size of it as well (perhaps even shape). And you have the males in the population selected for characteristics that correspond, it will eventually make sexual reproduction with the normal human population impossible (Which under one definition of the species concept, will make them separate species). There are also some other wild genetic traits that exist in the human population that could be selected for, like webbed digits or blue skin even.


If this example does not convince you I ask that you point out the reasons so that I may use our existing knowledge of genetics and heritability to propose another hypothetical example that may persuade you. I also ask that you lay the groundwork on what constitutes a separate species in your opinion so that my example may incorporate it. Also, if you disagree with my assumptions I can help illustrate them as fact.

I realize my example uses artificial selection rather than natural selection, but I can substitute artificial pressures for environmental ones in the next situation I provide.

[micatala]

Catastrophes also typically leave evidence behind.

A global flood, for example, had it occurred would have left lots of evidence behind. All the evidence we have indicates a global flood did not occur.

There have been lots of catastrophes including local floods that we can find evidence for. No global flood, though.

There have even been catastrophes that have had a global impact, like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This left what I believe is called the "irridium layer" which can be found all across the world. It forms what is called the K-T boundary in the geological record.


However, the main point would be that we can observe non-catastrophic geological processes operating in the past. We can typically tell when either short term catastrophes (local floods, fault slippages, etc.) have occurred as well as longer term and slower techtonically induced movements.

IMHO, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I prefer ice cream myself. And besides, if one is right on two counts one is right on two counts. Truth is not democratic, nor is one required to be wrong every other time.

First you say that there is no evidence for world-wide catastrophe A, then you say that there is proof for world-wide catastrophe B.

For A, we have lots of evidence against a worldwide flood.

1) Not enough water.
2) No indication of salt in ice caps, some of which are well over 100,000 years old.
3) Tree ring chronologies with no evidence of a flood going back over 10,000 years (refutes all by itself a global flood in that time frame)
4) Fossil record inconsistent with a global flood event

I would say that the

"irridium layer" which can be found all across the world. It forms what is called the K-T boundary in the geological record.

is evidence for a world-wide flood.

Hmmm. And you consider evolution an "outlandish idea"? You have a strange definition of outlandish.

Besides what has already been mentioned, the irridium layer is rather thin. Thus, it seems to me you are the one trying to have their cake and eat it too.

On the one hand, the sediments from the alleged flood are supposed to be so thick as to contain the huge amounts of fossils we find. This requires sediments thousands of feet thick.

On the other hand, somehow a very thin layer of a very special mineral is supposed to have formed only at one specific level within the sediments. Somehow, magically, all the dinosaurs end up below this layer, and many other species, including humans, are only found above it.

If the irridium came from a flood, how come it did not get mixed up in the water and distributed more widely throughout the sediments?

Given that the principle determining factor of how things sink is their weight, how come all the dinosaurs, even those smaller than humans and elephants, ended up under the irridium layer and all the humans and elephants above?

Talk about an outlandish idea.

I would wager the probability of a huge world wide flood washing out all animal life on earth save the hypothetical animals on the hypothetical ark and sorting all the dinosaurs, every last one, below a thin layer and all the humans, apes, sabre-tooth cats, mammoths, modern insects and not to mention the modern day plants ALL above the layer would be lower than winning the powerball lottery every week for a year.

[Tuff]

A global flood, for example, had it occurred would have left lots of evidence behind. All the evidence we have indicates a global flood did not occur.

To be honest, I'm not sure why people even believe in this anymore. I mean, the whole Noah's Ark thing sounds right out of a comic book.

"He got two of every animal..."

Really now?