Is Evolution really all there is????

[Valjean]

The old watchmaker chestnut? Haven't we seen the answer to this many times?

1. The watch is a complex thing, that could not have come about on it's own
2. Therefore the watch must have had a maker
3. However, the maker of the watch is necessarily MORE complex than the watch itself
4. Therefore, since the watchmaker is also a very complex thing, the watchmaker couldn't have come about on it's own
5. Therefore the watchmaker must have had a maker

Who made the watchmaker?

The offspring of watches don't exhibit variation, in fact, they don't even reproduce. There is nothing in a watch for natural selection to work with. The comparison to living organisms is invalid.

You are right in that the genius of the world are having fewer children, however that does not matter. As mankind's knowledge increases, it increases at a faster rate. Picture this: When robots are finally made to be able to do all the work, that will free up everyone's time. What will people do? Perhaps they will strive to better themselves intellectually in a million different ways. Though a few geniuses might end up carrying the many, this might allow everyone to advance further than simple evolution would allow.

Mankind's knowledge is increasing, but individual knowledge is not. I think we are in agreement here, to some extent. We seem to be evolving toward a brave new world of alphas and epsilons.

How you attain each significantly superior design in the first place, to then be selected.. is the far more relevant part, and usually skipped over by evolutionists. Perhaps because it relies 100% on complete utter fluke- a random mutation spontaneously creating significant design advantages.. millions of times over till a single cell becomes human. it's a little problematic to say the least, and the reason most people are skeptical of the theory.

I'm getting the impression you're not entirely familiar with the mechanisms of evolution. There's little randomness to it.
As for most being skeptical, I think it's only poorly educated Americans and religious fundamentalists who are skeptical.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The offspring of watches don't exhibit variation, in fact, they don't even reproduce. There is nothing in a watch for natural selection to work with. The comparison to living organisms is invalid.
Mankind's knowledge is increasing, but individual knowledge is not. I think we are in agreement here, to some extent. We seem to be evolving toward a brave new world of alphas and epsilons.
I'm getting the impression you're not entirely familiar with the mechanisms of evolution. There's little randomness to it.
As for most being skeptical, I think it's only poorly educated Americans and religious fundamentalists who are skeptical.

How does genetic variation originate?

Belief in fundamentalist Darwinian evolution (completely unguided) is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, that's a pretty small fundamentalist minority, and many of those don't seem to be aware of the origin of genetic variation according to the theory. But I don't think these people are stupid, I believed what I was taught in school also.

Superficially it's a very attractive elegant theory, just like steady state and classical physics were to most. We used to believe that simple laws and lots of space and time were enough to account for the physical world and all it's functional complexity. The concept of deeper mysterious unpredictable forces, specific instructions guiding how physical matter arranges itself, was considered religious pseudoscience for the ignorant masses.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I googled:

How does genetic variation originate

Here's a good link for you:

https://genetics.knoji.com/where-does-genetic-variation-come-from/

Belief in fundamentalist Darwinian evolution (completely unguided) is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, that's a pretty small fundamentalist minority, and many of those don't seem to be aware of the origin of genetic variation according to the theory. But I don't think these people are stupid, I believed what I was taught in school also.

Superficially it's a very attractive elegant theory, just like steady state and classical physics were to most. We used to believe that simple laws and lots of space and time were enough to account for the physical world and all it's functional complexity. The concept of deeper mysterious unpredictable forces, specific instructions guiding how physical matter arranges itself, was considered religious pseudoscience for the ignorant masses.

We have addressed the numerous errors in these comments multiple times and doing so has become pointless, boring and monotonous.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I googled:



Here's a good link for you:

https://genetics.knoji.com/where-does-genetic-variation-come-from/



.

Good for you!

Exactly, completely random changes, principally mutations-

We are both refuting Valijean's claim that there is 'little randomness to it' so take up the debate with (her?)

 

[Valjean]

There is randomness in mutation and sexual reproductive variation, but after that there's a methodical selection. Nature picks through the random results and sets aside adaptive features. It's not a roll of the dice each time.

 

[Sapiens]

Random mutation supplies the raw material, natural selection picks the winners.

 

[Trichakra]

I believe in God, evolution, evolutionary-creationism, nature spirits, etc..

I believe in god too. God is everywhere.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Saint Dawkins came to me in a dream, and the answer is "yes".