7
15 votes
Apr 5, 2015

Theory is just a theory. It is not a law. Theory of evolution is a myth. Certain features of the world and of living things can be explained by the existence of the Designer. The world is too complex to be just an accident. An eye can't be formed over time - it's too complex. There are too many interconnected parts that would not work without the other. They wouldn't work if even one piece was missing. How does an organism that has no eyes grows eyes when it cannot even know there is anything to see?

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-3
main reply
3 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

Evolution is part of our designer, We were created twice. we were created as monkeys or chimps, then into homo-sapiens. by our designer. So I agree with everybody. More or less.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

We weren't "created" as monkeys or chimps. Humans, like any other species, evolved from simple unicellular organisms. It took hundreds of millions of years, or even billions of years. You can't even imagine such space of time.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Yes I can. I just used monkeys and chimps as an example of evolution. The point I was trying to make was that we were designed or created as homo-sapiens after this period ,From what species I don't know.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

What evidence do you base this on? The observed evidence that I know about suggests that some ancient ape split into several groups which became humans and modern apes eventually. How do you know (what observable and measurable element of the world around us suggests) that some artificial force change humans into what they are?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-2
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

Where do you find Any Part of my reply that refers to artificial forces? Now, if you can tell me exactly who observed this evidence that you know of, it would be news to me. As far as an ancient ape splitting into several species, not groups, that was my original question. Which species? How were we designed or created from this?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

You said "Designed or created", which imply a force applied by an intelligence which is not suggested by any evidence I know of. As for evidence of human evolution, it is from the fossil record, showing several stages of change between a common ancestor and both modern humans and apes. I do not know offhand what species it was, or the name of its discoverer, but if you look at the progression through Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens, there is a clear pattern of change in the same group of creatures, a change in a species as it becomes human.

As for your question of how we were designed or created from our evolutionary ancestors, I'm afraid you fundamentally misunderstand evolution. We were neither created nor designed. We just happened to have advantages which built up until we became modern humans. I invite you to read my explanation of the mechanism of evolution in a higher level comment, it goes over (hopefully clearly) why and how things evolve. As for why it might become different groups, species separate when they are physically separated. This is because certain attributes are more or less advantageous in different environments, which means that different attributes are 'selected for'. Selected for is in quotes because there isn't really a selection; there's only what survives best. If suddenly for some reason short people were better at surviving and having children, within two or three generations humans would pretty much all be short. No one chose it, it just happened because of the environment we are in. A real life example of this is a gene found commonly in Tibet, which changes how they metabolize oxygen. They do it much more efficiently because it is vital but their environment has so little oxygen. This means that really only those Tibetans who happen by chance to efficiently metabolize oxygen can do the work they need to do to survive without constantly being out of breath and energy.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

I did not imply intelligence as a factor in the creation or design of the human brain. I said that I did not know from what species we came from. It may be, and probably is a combination of more than one. The Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis can be a major part, but Neandrthul can too. It can also be different combinations in different areas of the world. Creation and Design are the Evolution of all life. Envirement and survival are included. Your points are valid. But the answer is, as far as I know, still being tested by science. There are more questions than answers that can be explained by one or two factors on the subject. So I do understand Evolution. I do not jump to conclusions by one or two theories or a monk adapting to less oxygen. It happens everywhere. The same gene does not always have the same effect.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Neanderthals are absolutely part of the chain of Human evolution. I'm not sure what you mean by different combinations in different areas of the world. Certainly we as a species developed differently in different areas, but part of the definition of a species is that it cannot breed outside its own species. While technically not impossible, it is exceedingly unlikely to the point that it has never been observed and is not expected to ever be observed that two species converge into one. This means that there must be a *linear* chain of evolution of each species.

If you claim that creation and design are the Evolution of all life and the human brain, how can you claim that intelligence is not a factor? I consider design to need intelligence, otherwise it isn't design.

Evolution is known to be fact, it is observed and confirmed regularly. Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution has also been repeatedly observed to accurately predict the outcome, with *absolutely no conflicting evidence*. If there were, a different theory would have had to formulated.

While it's true that any gene is expressed differently among different individuals, please also note that there is a large amount of difference in people's genes. Those with blue eyes, for example, all have an identifiable 'give this person blue eyes' section of their genome which is the same for all of them. Likewise, anyone with a birth defect which gives them fewer or extra limbs has an identifiably different section of their genome.

I do not think you understand what a theory means in science. You can't jump to conclusions 'from' a theory - the theory is already your conclusion. The Tibetans (please don't generalize and assume they are all monks) were merely a supporting example which demonstrates the continuing effects of evolution in the Human population.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

I understand theory in science is not a fact or conclusion. I understand that science has proven evolution as fact. I understand that science has not proven that we are intelligent by evolution. There is no proof, just theories. I have not drawn any conclusions. That is a fact that you do not understand.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

A theory is a conclusion. Supported by all observed evidence and contested by none.

Evolution is the only thing that determined what any species is, so it is the only cause for our intelligence. We are therefore intelligent by evolution.

Again, you have failed to explain with what incredible feat of cognitive dissonance you manage to believe that we were designed but not by any intelligent force, and somehow not have that be a conclusion.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Sorry. I won't argue with you. But I'd like to know where you learned your opinions.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
linked reply
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

I didn't. I formulated opinions based on what I've personally observed, what I learned in school, and what I've read in peer-reviewed repeatedly tested scientific experimental write-ups.

Again, you insist on redefining words for your own convenience. It makes it very hard to have a good discussion with you.

subscribe
Load more (9) in reply to the opinion
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: