>-but if that’s the only way you can deal with such a notion, go ahead, and please don’t waste your time– after all, I’m an ignorant religious lamb who’d never listen to your great wisdom, so why bother?
Offend the ad hominem sub-branch religion folks? Good….
I don’t believe in evolution. At least, not in the we-came-from-goo sense. I simply don’t see any *reason* to believe that everything came about randomly– I do believe in selective breeding, and I know that at various times the fossil record has shown new species showing up.
folks have yet to show me the “blindingly clear” shifting from an old form to a new. The one that I use to believe, the horse evolution example, has descendants that are found only after or at the same time as their ancestors. This isn’t *proof* that it couldn’t have happened, but the lack of the ancestors being found before their descendants means that the argument is weak.
Well, fossils are based on happenstance, as best we can tell. (hey, Strata could be true!) How about the stuff that is now– like DNA? Surely the stuff we know is very old– because they are simple animals, and we’ve got fossils that show they’ve been around for a long time– will have simple DNA that’s different from what’s here now? It’s like comparing a skateboard to an SUV with all the frills, right?
Well, actually, “the genome of the sea anemone, one of the oldest living animal species on Earth, shares a surprising degree of similarity with the genome of vertebrates”.
Oldest animals “more complex than thought.” (Thank you, Mrs. O’Leary.)
Well, I did say that I had no problems with selective breeding, right? I’m from a cattle ranch, and I love cats and dogs– those three examples of selective breeding, leaving aside the amazing things we can do with plants, means I probably believe in the human/ape shared bloodlines, right?
Well… not really. Just because things look similar doesn’t mean they’re related. I tend to view the biology classes and families as a way to say “these things are similar.” I don’t *care* if they “evolved” from the same place– it’s irrelevant.
On a less science-based but more human-based point, it seems to be used by folks who are trying to make a point I dislike: that humans are “just” animals. Yeah, because there are *so* many finches trying to get other finches to eat plants that aren’t endangered… and the sharks, they have huge groups that are working to get aid to sick sharks in different oceans….
Folks keep insisting that DNA is a “blueprint of life,” then exagerate the likeness of two physically similar species to drag down one by association. This stinks of an agenda, not of real science.
Honestly, if total evolution were in a vacuum, I wouldn’t bother to post about it. So you want to believe we’re all from slime? Whatever. So you want to believe that the aliens made us? Whatever.
But this is getting folks killed.
Abortion is being used to “improve” humanity, as it has for decades, by killing off the “undesirables.”
I am always amazed how many unspeakables will tell me that death is better than life. I’ve known many folks who fit the areas that are living lives “not worth living.” Amazingly, the only folks I know who’ve killed themselves had serious mental/emotional trouble. If their lives are *really* that bad, there are thousands of ways to end it– tall buildings, cleaning supplies, kitchen knives, pills, traffic, a plastic bag….. Yet none of these folks who are cheering for pro-active evolution seem to want to let folks try life, first.
That is why I am bothering to post about a poorly-supported theory that simply doesn’t matter: because folks are taking it to logical conclusions, and it is causing damage.