It isn't the simplicity per se....its the basic idea that life is a fluke....that everything that appears to be cleverly designed is a fortunate mutation or just a product of some natural process....but I have yet to see the word "mutation" attached to something beneficial....it is invariably something detrimental....and unattractive.
Mutation is actually a rather indifferent word. Mutation literally means change in the DNA and that's kind of it. Not sure why you only think of it as a pejorative, even in the XMen series it's used as a metaphor for humanity.
A mutation could really go either way. For example someone could still grow a tail which would be cumbersome. Someone else could have a heightened sense of taste, which might be annoying but rather beneficial in detecting potentially dangerous food better than others.
Sickle cell anemia might be a rather cumbersome illness but it's ultimately beneficial since it literally protects one from malaria. An example that beneficial and detrimental depend on the circumstances.
Allergies are in effect mutations. Being tolerant to lactose is actually a mutation. (Since I like to eat cheese, I'm quite fond of that mutation.) Wisdom teeth are left overs from when our skulls were bigger, if I'm not mistaken.
Some mutations are annoying or even detrimental some are beneficial. Some are useless. Like being double jointed for example. At least in humans. That's kind of how biology rolls really. Meh.
Luck isn't really that much of a factor as sexual and natural selection pressures rely on their surroundings and what works rather than rolling a die and seeing what happens. Although it may appear that way with detrimental mutations, but then again I have yet to see a scientist claim that evolution was a precise artform. Sometimes it's just not. Though one could argue that we as a species, with the help of medical science, in effect allow more detrimental mutations to occur by ensuring a more thorough survival of the overall species. Not saying we shouldn't, of course, just that it's an unintended consequence.
Again I ain't a scientist, not really my area of expertise.
Still I feel like you're looking at this rather simplistically. I'm not trying to insult you or call into question your intelligence, I'm just being honest.
Also you said before that scientists themselves were using this sort of language. Likely, seems to etc. But then you differed to a teaching site that would use such language by default and not an actual scientific journal. I thought your beef was that the scientists were using this kind of language?
I see that they assume a great many things.....like whale evolution for example....
There is not a single shred of evidence that any of these creatures are even related....yet here is the diagram that suggests that this is a line of evolution in action. Who said? I see four completely different creatures at four different times in history...and you are correct, fossils are rare making this scenario even more far fetched. Its a case of "looks like...so it must be". I don't buy it.
Yes, fossils are rare. Not sure why that makes this far fetched? They are tracing the lineage quite easily. Using skeletons of their ancestors, their progeny and even today's animals. It's not so much leaps of logic as it is piecing together a puzzle. Granted there are still some pieces missing, perhaps they will have found them all in a mellenia or two. I'm not a psychic, so I dunno. But still if you understand the basic implications, it's not that hard to figure out.
And really? For different animals at different times? Technically correct but ultimately superficial. I can clearly see the process occurring. An animal changing structure over the Millenia. I don't see how this is a hard concept to grasp. I'm very much an idiot and I can quite easily "connect the dots" so to speak, just based off the diagram in question. Never mind the actual fossil record. There's being skeptical and then there's being obtuse, mate. Come on.
Again you assume they assume. Why? The diagram used is not how they figure things out, I suspect you already know this. It's literally just a rough guide, an artistic rendition to help give people a reference point. It's just a simple teaching tool, not the evidence itself. This conflation you make belies a rather superficial interpretation of basic data. Again not trying to insult you here. I'm just saying there is something deeper going on here than simply a bunch of animals all lined up in a picture. And I think you're smart enough to know this.
They use the actual skeletal structure of each and every animal to help gain an idea of what went where, hell we can now do that with DNA. But with extinct animals one has to rely on skeletons by default I suppose. Again you can go to the local museum and see a literal step by step skeletal mutation of a whale. It's actually quite awesome.
Science calculates the age of the universe.....and the Bible says that God took time to prepare the earth from a formless and desolate planet to one where life could thrive. He created by increments, all that has existed. It took 6 creative periods of undetermined length to accomplish the task assigned to each "day", (obviously not 24 hour days) .There is no wizard in the sky, poofing things into existence. God worked long and hard on his creations. Everything is coded with pre-programmed information that is transmitted by DNA to the next generation.....information does not pop out of thin air. Who wrote the codes?...millions of them...?
Given the likelihood of beneficial mutations ever occurring in the first place, and the staggering number of them that had to occur in each living thing....and that every kind of eye had to develop independently.....can you imagine the odds against that ever taking place?....and that's just with eyes.....add hearing, taste, touch, digestion, elimination, balance, breathing, hormones, brain function, instinct.....etc. and you begin to see how ridiculous this whole thing is. You think suggestions will carry it to the masses.....only to those gullible enough to want to believe it IMO.
I don't know who "wrote the codes" to RNA and DNA. I only have a passing familiarity with biology in general. As in I took it as a subject back in high school and used to watch Thunderfoot back in the day. You should really direct this question at someone with a little more expertise.
And it's not that improbable really. The odds are probably far more likely to be in favour of this occurring, seeing as how it's already literally happened. This is like claiming that winning the lottery is a myth. And yet people still win it every single day.
So gliding made wings grow eventually....? are you serious?
Why didn't mice and rats develop wings then?....or antelope? Didn't they get the memo?
Again asking the wrong person here. Want to ask me something about various literary movements? I can wax philosophical for you about that all day long.
Want to discuss Shakespeare or Ovid or Dante or insert famous literary boffin here?I'm your person.
Discuss the specific steps on how a wing became a wing? I'd have to defer to those in the field because I haven't the foggiest. I was kind of being a little flippant before. Sorry should have made that more clear.
Also I suspect mice and antelopes had different circumstances to develop under than winged creatures, just saying.
I have seen many documentaries on evolution and I can't help but notice how much is taken for granted, though none of it has any proof whatsoever. They will just provide these lovely computer generated animations and people think they are real.....
Those "lovely computer generated animations" is basically just a recreation of the skeletal evidence. You can see the literal bones for yourself at a natural history museum if CGI isn't your thing. I must ask though. Do you also balk at lovely computer generated animations of the human circulatory system? The human heart? The skeleton of a human?
I'm not sure why this is seen as farcical in evolutionary documentaries. It's literally just a teaching tool. A visual aid, they have spoon fed you information and you just simply hand wave it away. Why?
What more do you need? Do you want the boffins to set up cameras and literally document the wild for a million years? Would that satisfy you?
Be honest if someone gave you video evidence literally showing the generations upon generations of evolution happening before your very eyes, would you accept it? Because I sincerely want to believe that you would. But based on this conversation, I have to doubt it. I'd have to conclude that you would find a way around it, to try to eschew it. And I don't want to think of you being that way, truly I don't.
Micro is observable...it never goes beyond one species of creature. Look at horses....they assume that the small creatures they say are the first equines were horses but they don't really know. Its guessing. They haven't got anything concrete to establish lineage or even relationship to modern horses...its all suggestion and inference. God created all the living creatures because he said he did...he said nothing about creating evolution. Besides, what is the point of concentrating on how living things change if you have no idea how life even began? Answer that one and the rest answers itself.
So how does micro even know how to define a species and sub species? Where does micro end and macro begin? Because again, macro simply appears to me as micro accumulated. Nothing more.
Pretty sure they have fossils of ancestors to horses. Again you can literally see this with your own eyes whenever you so please. I don't know if it's all guessing like you claim because extrapolation is not really merely guessing.
And God never said anything about the Internet either. Doesn't automatically render it's existent null and void now does it?
And just basing your entire understanding on what you see is superficial at best and lazy at worst. Because there are all sorts of implications and extrapolations you miss by default. It's not scientific, it's not a good way to elicit a comprehensive understanding in a person and it's arguably extremely arrogant.
Where life began is a seperate subject. Not really related to evolution even.
And People like to see how things work. Where's your sense of intellectual curiosity?
Your thirst for knowledge? How is learning about how animals are, how they came to be and what they might be a bad thing? How is it blasphemous to explore creation to its fullest potential? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Understanding how creation works? Why settle for being in the dark? Why settle for a lack of true and proper understanding? If God gave us this, then it is our duty to explore it in my view.
I freely admit my limits in regards to science, my background is bare bones basic layman.
Just curious, what's your academic background in relation to Biology?
An interesting way to die
.....nothing more frustrating than trying to post on a phone or iPad. Def much easier on a laptop.
Mate, preaching to the choir here.
