Flagg the Wanderer
Mourning Algernon
The theory of evolution on a micro-scale makes a great deal of sense to me. On a macro scale, not so much. All the little improvements that a species makes do not seem to add up to the huge diversity that we see around us.
I'm not a creationist, but I'd talked to a number of them and they raise questions that I haven't been able to address to my satisfaction. I have problems comprehending some of the details of the theory as it is currently constituted.
These are honest questions that I could probably find the answers to if I were motivated to do so, I suppose. In truth, I've poked around some, and not found much that was helpful. I raised these questions as an undergrad, found the prof's answers unsatisfactory and/or evasive, and kept pressing - I was booted from the class. I thought someone here might know:
What evolutionary benefit would partially developed, non-functional wings offer, especially developing such at the expense of (rather than in addition to) arms or flippers?
Under what circumstances would a swimming or land-bound creature find the random mutation of hollow bones beneficial rather than a horrific doom (think Mr. Glass from unbreakable, except living in the wild instead of able to hide in society, or alternatively, trying to spend your whole life fighting if you were only 2/3 the weight you were evolved to be ideally)?
An animal's endocrine system dumps various chemicals/hormones into our system which balance each other out - some would be poisonous, others simply crippling. How do you evolve a system like that gradually? The system of any given animal is different of course, but all are carefully balanced.
What use is the "precursor to an eye"? Or did eyes/vision enter into a species by mutation in one jump - from absolutely nothing to some sort of light sensing equipment plus the neural wiring (of some sort) to interpret the light that is sensed? Ditto for every other sense, really, but the eye is a great example because it is so complicated, even the simplest eye.
Natural selection is a weeding out process of the traits in a species least conducive to survival. How does this generate new traits and INCREASE the variation needed for evolutionary theory?
Was evolution simply much, much slower before animals and some plants evolved sexual reproduction, and with it genetic recombination that allows for exponentially faster genetic mutations? Before this development, any evolution was reliant on "copy errors" as an organism made a carbon copy of itself, right?
Other stuff along this line. I never did too much with biology, in part because when I raised questions my teachers and professors grew very hostile very quickly. And that was before I was religious - I was only curious and...Missourian (for lack of a better adjective). Incredulous maybe?
Thanks in advance.
I'm not a creationist, but I'd talked to a number of them and they raise questions that I haven't been able to address to my satisfaction. I have problems comprehending some of the details of the theory as it is currently constituted.
These are honest questions that I could probably find the answers to if I were motivated to do so, I suppose. In truth, I've poked around some, and not found much that was helpful. I raised these questions as an undergrad, found the prof's answers unsatisfactory and/or evasive, and kept pressing - I was booted from the class. I thought someone here might know:
What evolutionary benefit would partially developed, non-functional wings offer, especially developing such at the expense of (rather than in addition to) arms or flippers?
Under what circumstances would a swimming or land-bound creature find the random mutation of hollow bones beneficial rather than a horrific doom (think Mr. Glass from unbreakable, except living in the wild instead of able to hide in society, or alternatively, trying to spend your whole life fighting if you were only 2/3 the weight you were evolved to be ideally)?
An animal's endocrine system dumps various chemicals/hormones into our system which balance each other out - some would be poisonous, others simply crippling. How do you evolve a system like that gradually? The system of any given animal is different of course, but all are carefully balanced.
What use is the "precursor to an eye"? Or did eyes/vision enter into a species by mutation in one jump - from absolutely nothing to some sort of light sensing equipment plus the neural wiring (of some sort) to interpret the light that is sensed? Ditto for every other sense, really, but the eye is a great example because it is so complicated, even the simplest eye.
Natural selection is a weeding out process of the traits in a species least conducive to survival. How does this generate new traits and INCREASE the variation needed for evolutionary theory?
Was evolution simply much, much slower before animals and some plants evolved sexual reproduction, and with it genetic recombination that allows for exponentially faster genetic mutations? Before this development, any evolution was reliant on "copy errors" as an organism made a carbon copy of itself, right?
Other stuff along this line. I never did too much with biology, in part because when I raised questions my teachers and professors grew very hostile very quickly. And that was before I was religious - I was only curious and...Missourian (for lack of a better adjective). Incredulous maybe?
Thanks in advance.
