Hi cuz.
Evolution disproved by 11 year old niece
by StopTheTears 285 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
shamus100
** leaps into New Chapters arms, digs hands into her neck, stares at her intently waiting for something.. **
-
i_drank_the_wine
THIS THREAD DELIVERS.
Jesus is gonna git all you science-worshipping nay-sayers!
-
shamus100
Hey, wino,
I know you are but what am I??? I know you are but what am I???? I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I???
You should come kiss the monkey instead. I shall deliver a blessing upon you.
-
Twitch
Yup, hit and run OP. Still, some good points.
The idea of a loving creator and any form of evolution do appear mutually exclusive.
-
N.drew
Hello! I briefly read the book The Greatest Show On Earth by Dawkins. It was at the bookstore. Naturally I went to the index first to find "time" because that is what I am interested in and it is also the brunt of my argument. Of course I did not read the whole chapter yet, but I have a big problem with his introductory illustration about there being enough time for all the intricate changes that were completed already.
I have three problems with his dog illustration.
1. It is canine to canine, not such a big deal.
2. Breeding is controlled by intelligence. Much thought goes into the selection of mates.
3. The finest breeds have more biological disfunction than not. If you want to adopt a healthy dog, go with mutdom.
I said I would read the books, but I don't have them yet.
I did find* A Brief History of Time by Stephen W. Hawkins. I will try reading that one because I have it.
* for $1.00 at Goodwill
-
cofty
N.drew don't bother reading Hawkin's book if you are interested in finding out how evolution could all happen in the 4 billion years we have available for the project. It is a book on theoretical physics and has no connection to your question.
I already suggested "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B Carroll as one that will help you with.
I briefly read the book The Greatest Show On Earth by Dawkins. It was at the bookstore.
No, sorry that doesn't count but well done browsing at least.
It is an excellent book, you can read a review of some of it here..
In chapter 3 Dawkins describes a fascinating observation regarding the breeding of wild foxes.
Raymond Coppinger proposed the theory that the first stage of domestication of the wolf was self-domestication which humans later built on through further artificial selection. Wild animals have a natural “flight distance” in other words if they are scavenging near a human habitation how close will they allow humans to get before running away? Too close may be dangerous, but too soon and less chance for grabbing food.
The Russian geneticist Dimitri Belyaev was employed to run a fur farm for in the 1950s. He began to select for breeding those animals that were the most naturally tame. After a mere six generations the foxes had changed so much he and his colleagues felt obliged to name a new category of fox. Within 35 generations the successors to his work reported that 70-80% of all the animals belonged to this new class. Although selection had always been for tameness alone and no other visible feature the physical changes were astounding. The foxes had become piebald black and white like Welsh collies. Their foxy ears had been replaced with floppy, doggy ones. Their tails turn up like a dog rather than down like a fox brush. The females came on heat every six months like a b*tch rather than every year like a vixen. They even started to sound like domestic dogs.
These features were side effects, a phenomenon called pleiotropy whereby genes have more than one effect. The doggy features were freeloading in the evolutionary genes for tameness.It is information like this, if you take the time to reflect on it that will help you to see how powerful natural selection is.
-
poopsiecakes
Nancy, how do you explain vestigiality?
-
cofty
Nancy, how do you explain vestigiality?
I think that's still illegal here in the UK
-
