Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I don't believe the theory of evolution is "well supported."
I say phooey to "evolutionary science" and the development of "Cro-Magnon craniums."
One of my roommates in college was a precious african-american brother from the Cleveland ghetto. His profile looked just like Neanderthal man. Imagine one day they excavate his remains and make more of their bogus claims .
Ohio -- the evolution skeptic.
|
A theory is not a law, and it is much easier to disprove a theory than to prove it. Saying it is "well supported" only means that all of the evidence so far supports the theory and there is no hard evidence to disprove it.
That said, there is still very much about DNA that we do not know. For example, there is evidence that the dna for a dinosaur can be found in modern birds. It seems, and this is the theory based on some very interesting experiments that DNA is something like an instruction manual on how to build a creature, and what happens is not so much that previous instructions have been lost, but rather there are new instructions to ignore them. It is almost like getting a manual on how to build a bird that says to skip the first 5 chapters on dinosaurs and start on chapter 6.
If this is in fact true, then it would explain "Lazarus Taxa" the remergence of extinct species millions of years later. It also means we can bring back extinct species in the future. Pretty cool.
Some of the biggest questions about the theory though revolve around humans. For example, the human brain is a very expensive organ for the body to maintain. In particular our ability to read is very costly and comes at the expense of a photographic memory. For hunter gatherers like apes, a photographic memory would be extremely beneficial, whereas for any species without a written language it seems the ability to read would be a big waste. So, according to the theory of evolution how do you explain apes favoring a genetic mutation to reading at the expense of a photographic memory?
Second, by any measure the human brain seems highly evolved (specialized) and by comparison our reproductive system seems very primitive and very hit or miss. That seems to contradict the theory. If the driving force is the perpetuation of the species why wouldn't the reproductive system be the most highly evolved?