Once again, Free Citizen has illustrated how the public lacks basic knowledge of evolution. First of all, human existence is but a blink of eye in evolutionary terms, which does not give enough time for any meaningful evolutionary processes to take place. Most of the cutural, tribal, and racial differences currently among humans are not the results of evolution, and are relatively minute anyway. And I'm not sure how FC came with up with the idea that the oldest must be the most advanced. All of the ancient civilizations have almost diminished today and all the industrialized nations are relatively young.
Secondly, the theory of evolution does not mandate the process to be always adaptive. In fact most of them are random, or controlled by other mechanisms such as sexual selection, which is how you get a peacock's tail, with no survival advantages what so ever. In other words, it's not strictly as the public perceives that evolution is always "survival of the fittest".
As for the question of how blue eyes and blond hair came along, Harris (2006) actually proposed such features are products of parental selection by means of infanticide. So these so called evidence against evolution actually do not contradict the theory of evolution. And there is certainly no need for the deployment of a higher being to explain these phenomenoms.
In all this discussion, shouldn't we be asking whether it's appropriate behavior to steal a dolphin from the ocean in the first place?
What's more, this dolphin is one of the few survivors of a brutal slaughter that goes on every year. AP's story does not mention this horrific practice at all, which is a terrible shame.
To learn more about how this dolphin was found and came to be captured in the first place, read this:
We shouldn't be wasting our time talking about whether this is an evolutionary step forward or backward. That's not terribly important when thousands of cetaceans are being barbarically torn from the ocean every year.
In response to pseudotriton; which part of Free Citizen's comment epitomizes the lack of scientific understanding? There is nothing in FC's comment to suggest that Evolution is to be rejected. Only the hypothesis that it is possible that a portion of modern man may have an alternate origin rather than one based solely on Evolutionary forces. Evolution alone can not explain the large gap of development between different human tribes. When Neil Armstrong first stepped foot on the moon, there were still head hunters on the island of Borneo. Would pseudotriton care to point out what evolutionary advantage there is for humans to develop blue eyes or blond hairs? If pseudotriton cannot agree that a portion of the modern human race could be a product of genetic engineering, there are other possibilities. Artificial Insemination being one of them. Take your pick.
In response to tunafish16: To understand evolution, one does not need any faith. What you need is logical reasoning, something that is unlikely without adequate education and basic knowledge. The comments by tunafish and Free Citizen epitomizes the lack of scientific understanding in the general public (shame). Evolution does not occur at the individual level. Individuals cannot "decide" to change themselves. Evolution is a process that's determined by the environment and random processes and occur over hundreds to thousands of generations (i.e. one individual cannot undergo macro-evolution). By the way, even fish do not "breath water". They breath the oxygen in the water, let alone dolphines. But I guess someone else already sort of pointed that out.
I'm not sure that all the readers are really familiar with cetacean physiology. For one, dolphins do not breathe water. Two, the requirement of a pelvic process is not a necessity for the formation and delivery of young, though it is the norm in mammals.
To infer that it is an act of God or the supernatural is to remove it from the realm of science. I feel that it is a normal genetic aberration. Let science thoroughly exam it and see if there is any direct correlations or evidence to back up their hypothesis before attributing it to higher powers.
Scientists will find whatever they want to find. If a man is born with 6 fingers does it mean that we all had six fingers at one time.
Here's a question, how did these land animals figure out how to start breathing water? Did they just decide one day to stop walking and start swimming?
Oh yeah, and while they were at it they decided to just get rid of their legs and grow fins.
OK... which one requires more faith... the idea that God created everything or that everything DECIDED to create and improve upon itself?
I think I'd rather fly, let me start thinking about it and maybe I'll grow wings.
Evolution or Creationism? Could it be both? Evidence of evolutionary forces is overwhelming that can not be dismissed. But is Evolution alone responsible for the state of being today? The earliest clues of human evolution comes from Africa. If palaeontology is any guide it would indicate that that continent has the oldest human tribe. One could surmise that human kind there would be the most advanced. However, this is not the case. On the other hand, why is it that G_d whose true name is forbidden to be read aloud or reproduced in print sounds like and reads like the name of a machine? Ancient cultures have fantastic legends that described how the G_ds came down from heaven in chariots of fire and thunder. Doesn't that sound a lot like rocket vehicles astronauts use today? Our skills have developed to a stage where we are able to genetically engineer produce that are superior in some way to what mother nature can offer. Salmons bred in captivity is twice the size of wild salmons. Genetically engineered wheat yield more tonnage of the food than natural species could. Under the same circumstances but on a more advanced level, isn't it possible that an ancient intelligent entity engineered what it thought would be a more perfect human specie? Ever since G_d spoke at Mount Sinai, why has it remain silent? Perhaps one day it might return to check on this little experiment it left behind. A ludicrous thought? Think again. What proof is there to discount such a possibility?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Secondly, the theory of evolution does not mandate the process to be always adaptive. In fact most of them are random, or controlled by other mechanisms such as sexual selection, which is how you get a peacock's tail, with no survival advantages what so ever. In other words, it's not strictly as the public perceives that evolution is always "survival of the fittest".
As for the question of how blue eyes and blond hair came along, Harris (2006) actually proposed such features are products of parental selection by means of infanticide. So these so called evidence against evolution actually do not contradict the theory of evolution. And there is certainly no need for the deployment of a higher being to explain these phenomenoms.
What's more, this dolphin is one of the few survivors of a brutal slaughter that goes on every year. AP's story does not mention this horrific practice at all, which is a terrible shame.
To learn more about how this dolphin was found and came to be captured in the first place, read this:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20061101a3.html
We shouldn't be wasting our time talking about whether this is an evolutionary step forward or backward. That's not terribly important when thousands of cetaceans are being barbarically torn from the ocean every year.
To understand evolution, one does not need any faith. What you need is logical reasoning, something that is unlikely without adequate education and basic knowledge. The comments by tunafish and Free Citizen epitomizes the lack of scientific understanding in the general public (shame). Evolution does not occur at the individual level. Individuals cannot "decide" to change themselves. Evolution is a process that's determined by the environment and random processes and occur over hundreds to thousands of generations (i.e. one individual cannot undergo macro-evolution).
By the way, even fish do not "breath water". They breath the oxygen in the water, let alone dolphines. But I guess someone else already sort of pointed that out.
The simple answer is, Dolphins don't have gills. So they don't breathe water. They breathe oxygen just as whales do.
To infer that it is an act of God or the supernatural is to remove it from the realm of science. I feel that it is a normal genetic aberration. Let science thoroughly exam it and see if there is any direct correlations or evidence to back up their hypothesis before attributing it to higher powers.
Here's a question, how did these land animals figure out how to start breathing water? Did they just decide one day to stop walking and start swimming?
Oh yeah, and while they were at it they decided to just get rid of their legs and grow fins.
OK... which one requires more faith... the idea that God created everything or that everything DECIDED to create and improve upon itself?
I think I'd rather fly, let me start thinking about it and maybe I'll grow wings.
Bye now.