Forums → WEPR → Evolution

There is no peak to evolution. It's not a ladder like process.

I meant that they can't advance much through evolution anymore.

It's reached an ideal size, any larger and the signal between one side of the brain and the other would be too long.

If I were to guess it would likely be minor changes such as becoming more resistant to certain diseases

Since human populations around the world have been separated until fairly recently, causing divergence among races,

I read in a science magazine a few months ago that out brains may have reached the peak of evolution.

If bacteria evolves faster than we can innovate new pharmaceutics, we'll be in trouble.

I don't know if in English races is a synonym with ethnies, but biologically there is no reason to even mention races when talking about human populations, so I wouldn't use it.

macfan1 asked that I read this entire site (http://www.icr.org/) and give my critique of it. I started to look it over and noticed right off the bat that it was giving the same old tired arguments I've seen from countless other creationist sites. I pointed out how they are using half truths, lies and preconceived notions.
I've decided to point my critique here instead of on his profile as I wanted to give this justice and I'm offered more room on a thread post than on a profile post. This also gives others a chance to comment and critique, which will be good since I don't have time to do the entire site myself.

I will start with this one.
http://www.icr.org/scientific-knowledge/

Scientific knowledge is not a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. In addition, the explanation must be verified repeatedly to confirm that it correctly models reality.

As our technical ability to observe reality improves, we are able to increase the quality and quantity of our observations. Better-observed data challenge our explanations, some of which will no longer fit the observed facts. New theories are then formed and either verified or falsified.

While our scientific knowledge changes rapidly, the absolute reality that is being modeled has never changed. The scientific method assumes an absolute reality against which theories can be verified.

That required immense imagination and deliberately ignoring a wide range of scientific observations that contradict the Big Bang, such as the universe's clumpy mass distribution and galaxies that appear to be billions of years more mature than the model predicts.

Krauss cited Edwin Hubble's now famous scientific observation of redshifted starlight, which is a repeatable observation and is therefore science. But to interpret this as being caused by expansion is not directly scientific. And to extrapolate an expanding universe backward in time all the way to when everything supposedly burst forth from nothing is philosophically motivated history, not science at all!

Human feet would quickly freeze if exposed to snow and ice without proper gear, but dogs don't seem to mind the cold. Since the pads of their feet aren't protected by fur like the rest of their bodies, it would seem that they'd be especially susceptible to freezingâ"but they aren't. Japanese researchers recently discovered why.

It turns out that dog paws have tiny blood vessels arranged as counter-current heat exchangers. This way, dogs' internal body heat is not lost through the soles of their feet. Instead, cold blood is warmed right in their paws before it re-enters the main blood supply. Plus, most of the core body blood recirculates back into the body, instead of straight to the feet, to keep the animals' temperature consistently warm even when walking on ice.

In their study published in the journal Veterinary Dermatology, the researchers found the dogs' "wonderful network" of veins by injecting something like liquid rubber into the blood vessels of the dogs' feet.1 They were then able to examine the three-dimensional vessel network after the chemical hardened. The vessels "formed a vein-artery-vein triad" where heat could flow at just the right pace across the system.2

This discovery only adds to the long list of known dog features that identify them as intentionally created creatures, including the dog's straight back that "better absorbs the power that is generated by the hindquarters when the animal is moving."3 Animal anatomist Daniel Schmitt called dog locomotion "an evolutionary miracle in my view."4

Also, a dog's sense of smell is so acute that it can distinguish between identical twins,5 and its hearing is so well-developed that it can hear sounds up to 40,000 cycles per secondâ"twice what human ears can hear. And their ear structure enables them to hear "about 4 times farther than humans are capable of hearing."6

Superior dog engineering, from head to toe, should point thinking people to a superior Engineer.

Ok, you did a lot of reaserch.

Ok, you did a lot of reaserch.

I forgot to note on the Universe from nothing point.

Nothing is supposed to mean just thatâ""no thing," which involves the complete absence of any matter or force or space.

Is there anything you thought that you can't contradict?

This may be a bit off topic, but I think if humans survive another couple million years we will be better swimmers, and maybe able to drink salt-water.

@macfan1

How about you give it a try. Where do you see them go wrong on this article?

http://www.icr.org/article/does-the-beak-finch-prove-darwin-was-right/

As the naturalist on the Beagle, Charles Darwin made numerous valuable observations of as yet undiscovered plants and animals. Along the way, the Beagle anchored for an extended stay in the Galapagos Islands, 600 miles off the western coast of South America. While the crew mapped these rugged volcanic islands, Darwin studied the unique animals living there, especially the numerous varieties of finches, today classed as fourteen different species. Numerous features suggested to Darwin that these birds were related to each other and related to similar birds in South America. Yet they showed significant differences between them, including some features not found in South America. Of particular interest were the beaks. Some were small, others parrot-like. Some were curved, one had a boring beak.

Some creationists of Darwin's day held to the absolute immutability of species, that God had created each species for each specific ecological habitat, and no significant changes had ever occurred or could ever occur. But, to Darwin, these animals appeared to be related and now showed much variety. They further appeared to have migrated from South America and acquired other traits after arrival. He could not reconcile the evidence with this particular creationist teaching. Thus his concept of evolution by natural selection began to take form.

But today's creationists, and even some in Darwin's day, freely allow for limited change within created kinds, or basic categories. It is within the creationist model to propose that the present varieties of finch descended from one or more ancestral categories of finch and that migration of animals into new areas can and does happen. Creationists agree fully with Darwin over the finches. But they disagree with the wholly unsupported evolutionary speculation that finches evolved from fish and ultimately from single-celled organisms. Rather, the evidence better fits the idea that each basic category of animal was created as that category. Changes are limited by the genetic information present at the start.

What, then, are we to make of the recent newspaper articles worldwide proclaiming that a new study of finches and their beaks have shown "Darwin was Right"? A team of Princeton scientists have won a prestigious award for 20 years of study of the finch's beaks on one tiny island in the Galapagos chain, home of only a few finch species, and a best-selling novel entitled The Beak of the Finch tells their story and explains their findings. Just what was found?

The two scholars, Drs. Peter and Rosemary Grant observed how, under drought conditions, birds with larger beaks were better adapted than others, thus their percentage increased. But this trend reversed when the cyclical conditions reversed. Furthermore, in times of drought, the normally separate species were observed to cross-breed. They are related after all. Darwin was right!

But is this really evolution? Even after the changes there is still the same array of beak sizes and shapes. This is variation and adaptation, not evolution.

Actually, de-evolution has occurred; the observation is that there are larger groupings of species into what may be more reminiscent of the originally created kind. Creation agrees with Darwin's observations and with the newer observations, but evolution doesn't, even though the Grants interpret this as rapid evolution. Wonderful study-great data, wrong interpretation.

The de-evolution in the last paragraph? I'm not so sure. I don't have a PHD.

I just thought of this. If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist? And the hyena that evolved into a whale, why is hyenas still around. Aren't they supposed to all have changed into whales by now?

Oh I thought I'd show this to everyone.


If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species