Friday, October 12, 2007 1:08:48 PM
"...it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution."
Evolution does *not* depend on chance but rather processes that are in turn limited by other processes. We didn't *happen* to come together as we did; the processes that preceded us simply made it an inevitability.
Friday, October 12, 2007 1:07:09 PM
"The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence..."
It's convenient to think of the universe as having been developed by coincidence but it`s not strictly coincidence. Coincidence implies that the universe contains a vast range of possibilities and that we happened to form from an endless chain of accidents. This is *not* so. Every event or process the universe undergoes limits the succeeding results in a linear fashion.
[Here`s a deal. I can sufficiently demonstrate how we are the result of linear processes but it`d simply take too much room to post out here. It`s a lot of writing but if you want to hear it I`ll make the effort and write to you in PM. If you want to read my explanation I`ll write it for you but only if you agree to remain objective and docile so as not to waste my time.]
Friday, October 12, 2007 1:00:45 PM
"A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall."
BlueAdept, please. That's not evolution, that`s genetics. If two parents are heterozygous for the genes that determine a tall or short phenotype, then theoretically 1/4 of their children will be short. Genetics is responsible for why we have variation, but it is not responsible for why there exists a wild-type of each organism, which is attributed to natural selection which *does* fall directly under the domain of evolution. You should educate yourself some more.
"That is a semi-example of Natural selection"
It`s not even "semi".
"But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct."
Agreed, except that the greater parts of evolution have not as of yet been proven false, therefore it is accepted as true. This is how science works.
Friday, October 12, 2007 12:56:10 PM
"And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn't need them or at the least, have them?"
You just implied no human is perfect, which reinforces the contradiction in my previous post.
"It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation."
Your definition should negate why you think the complexity of the eye is incompatible with evolution. If indeed evolution is capable of transferring organisms to a higher state of complexity, why couldn`t evolution apply the same principle to the eye?