It would seem that if the fittest survive, potty-trained babies would come in miles ahead of those that are not.
Just the simple ability to use the toilet, along with sleeping through the night, would make babies more fun to have around. There would be more of them.
Evolution is considered a theory. This means that it is accepted as likely, but still is not totally proven.
If evolution is true, then humans are way behind.
More specifically, we are talking about “natural selection,” where positive traits that strongly influence survival predominate.
The very presence of teeth that trap spinach is an argument against evolution. People with hunks of green matter in their mouths are not attractive, but still they have not dropped from the gene pool.
This means also that people should be getting prettier, but they do not seem to be.
In the nonhuman world, we see evolution all around us. The wall phone becomes the desk phone, then the cell phone changes into the smart phone, which leads to the iPad, which will become who knows what.
Prune juice evolves to Dr. Pepper, which in turn leaves behind its prunes in favor of artificial flavor. So we now have fake, sugar-free prune juice, whereas we once had a powerful laxative.
However, if you drink a large amount of Dr. Pepper, the absence of this effect is beneficial. Soda is now better than fruit juice.
In the world of humans, some things have gone very wrong.
If evolution is at work in human history, why do people get bunions? Bunions are neither attractive nor useful for the promotion of the species. One would think that bunions would have dropped from the genetic mix.
Diseases and traits whose onset is in old age do not count. Natural selection takes place in the child-bearing years.
Therefore, one cannot say that a theory of evolution is wrong based on sagging breasts and beer bellies. These are the result of gravity and years of bad habits.
However, proclivities toward cigarette smoking and eating double cheeseburgers should have dropped out generations ago.
While I generally believe in the survival of the fittest, I have noticed that I have survived. This in itself draws evolution into question.
• Mike McLellan can be contacted by calling and leaving a message at 830-4231 or e-mailing him at DrMikeM@sbcglobal.net.
C.N.,
You are confused about many things.
.........................
Nah, just having fun with evolutionary thoughts in here in layman's term.
CN
You are confused about many things.
Stress changes many things in the body from brain to the toes. It causes chemical changes in the body. Harms the circulation (high blood pressure), affecting the brain, causing depressions.
Gluttony, features of people definitely change when gaining weight, as well as the features of the organs inside the body....(fatty liver) the original body was not designed for gluttony, beer belly, flabby arms.
Guess the man does have a play on evolution... his own.. by the choices he makes?
CN
Thanks for giving me something fun to think about.
Does evolution happen after meeting a challenge?
Does change cause evolution or evolution cause the change?
Solving problem sets things in motion? As in being smarter in figuring how to get the "prize" out of the tree?
Did you know that some farmers swear to me that the crows have gotten smart enough to poke a hole in the ear of the corn...wait a few days, return to the same corn and pull their prize!
Go figure, Darwin. :0)
CN
Go back to the school that taught you Logic and get a refund.
1) Fossil records;
2) Natural selection or "survival of the fittest"; and
3) Random mutation.
"Survival of the fittest" is based on circular reasoning that assumes "survival of the fittest" to be true in order to prove that only the fittest survive. Yet that maxim cannot point to any independent criteria to prove its validity.
To mix a metaphor: "None of the legs holds water".
Afterthought -- Some things to read debunking Darwin:
@ "Shatering the Myths of Darwinism" - Richard Milton, 1997;
@ "A Non_Geneticist Looks at Evolution" in "American Scientist" Jan.1953 p 100 - Prof. C.P.Martin of McGill U. in Montreal.
@ "Darwin Under the Microscope" in "New York Times" Oct.29,1996 p A25 - Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University.
@ "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth" - Jonathan Wells of Yale U. & U.C. Berkeley, 2000;
@ "Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life" - Alister McGrath, PhD.in molecular biology, Oxford U. 2005;
@ "What Darwin Didn't Know" - Geoffrey Simmons, MD, 2004;
@ "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" in "Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, Jan.1979 p 22 - Prof David Raup, U of Chicago.
That line of reasoning is quite common and called "Reductio ad absurdum".
You were just too verbose about it.
Our society is bombarded by writers (thinkers) who daily endeavor to cognitively decapitate us.
Mike is inadvertently legitimizing the right of those who wish to be cognitively decapitated.
His tongue-in-cheek doesn’t work.
And the sleepwalkers shall inherit the earth.
I wasn't around during the creation. Speak for yourself.
Even the concept of evolution was created. The understanding Freud had of creation has even evolved.
You can't have one without the other.
The difference between evolution and creationism; One requires no belief to exist and the other doesn’t exist without belief.
People on the other hand, have morphed into thosr with infertility and abortion rates and those with the choice not to have eight children.
According to evolutionists, the man with ten wives who belongings to a splinter denomination of the mormons is evolution's strongest candidate.
And if we were dinosaurs we would all be these same type of man, abandoning junk food and living off the land in Utah.
It's a constant trade off. Advancements in medicine verses packaged and genetically altered corn.
But one that says at the end of evolution is where man gets too smart for his/her own good.
Meaning the theory of evolution was wrong, wherein the strongest and healthiest are not the ones who survive.
They are actually an anomoly, a corner case, or outliers, statistically speaking. The survival of the species is a typical overwieght, balding man or woman with ostroporosis and diabetes or a mild heart problem.
It's just further proof that evolutionists need to go back to the drawing board.
Thank you, that is certainly a relief but he should consider where we live and realize there are people among us that have these absurd beliefs. We should be careful not to reinforce stupidity.
As always, thanks for the comments.
None of your arguments make any sense. Bad and good traits are passed on when there is no direct conflict with our survival. For example if conditions changed to where people with bunions were less capable to getting the necessities for survival then these traits would gradually die off since people afflicted with bunions would be less likely to make it to full adulthood thus making reproduction less likely. Evolution is merely an observation of reality.
Gravity is merely a theory yet we accept it as fact. Evolution has been proven by so many different branches of science that it may be "a theory" but it is a fact. This does not mean that there can't be a God, just that we have evolved over time to our current species.
Your use of the changes of phones over time is not even a good comparison since the phone does not evolve over time, we humans are the ones who change the phone. A better comparison would be the uses of penicillin and how the bacteria continually evolves to be resistant to the drug so we as humans have to constantly change the drug to combat the evolution of the bacteria.