There is a very simple reason why evolution doesn't explain that. Evolution is a biological theory, not a theory about the creation of the universe. Your argument is akin to saying that photosynthesis doesn't exist, because it doesn't explain the origin of the universe.
I'm going to pose a statement, perhaps someone could give me some insight as well... so let's say humans will be the common ancestor of 2 species some time in the future both of which can fly. the flying mutation would have to occur TWO times independently, and those two individuals will have to come together and mate to produce two flying progeny?
A similar question was asked several hundred years ago, I forgot his name. If there is no god, then why is earth the center of the universe.
I don't know the answer to your question, but keep in mind that the ability to fly isn't just something that will come about through a random mutation. Its not like someone will be born with a "flying" gene, and all of a sudden he's superman. For us to develop such an ability, it would require dramatic change in our bodies. Actually, I think it is extremely unlikely that highly evolved organisms like human beings (or dogs or horses) could obtain the capability of flight through evolutionary processes. But I'm no expert.
That's not how evolution works. A group will branch off and someone will mutant but not enough to be considered a new species. They'll mate within that group and the trait most adaptable the environment will be prominent while the ones with less advantageous traits will die. Eventually, the branched off group won't be able to mate with the older group.
Just fyi, the following is not a dig at you, after all, it's not your lecture. So, let me summarize his whole ridiculous lecture: 1. I hate all religious people and they are the stupidest people on earth. Bill Maher has got it right! 2. Research has shown that all the Universe is made up of 1% visible matter, 29% Dark matter and I guess the other 70% is mass of energy between galaxies--however, I just pulled this 70% part out of my donut muscle, because I needed to fill in the missing 70% of mass. 3. I hate all religious people and they are the stupidest people on earth. Bill Maher has got it right! 4. Einstein was asking all the wrong questions, but its not his fault--since, I am smarter than him after all. Therefore, trust me when I say that the universe has zero energy and the laws of physics now allows a universe that can be created from nothing due to quantum fluctuations--again, something I just pulled out of my donut muscle. 5. I hate all religious people and they are the stupidest people on earth. Bill Maher has got it right! 6. His own illustration of String theory best describes his lecture: Scientist A: "I have a theory that the universes can be modeled as series of vibrating strings." Scientist B: "So what does this tell us about the Universes?" Scientist A: "I don't know!" 7. I hate all religious people and they are the stupidest people on earth. Bill Maher has got it right! 8. In conclusion, math is the language of nature. Therefore, I will repeat that it stands to reason that quantum fluctuations caused a universe to materialize from nothing: ==> (Quantum Fluctuations) + (Zero Energy of Universe) = Known Universe! 9. So, based on this sound logic, it baffles me why Creationist, Ted Warren, and Bush still question my theory on Cosmology! Crowd: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: I was just waiting for someone to ask, "Are you really a Cosmologist?" to which I fully expected to hear him respond, "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last Night!" BTW, I actually have a MS in Electrical Engineering--so I understand logic and math just a "bit."
The "before" and "after" doesn't explain much from an evolutionary standpoint. All that matters are traits that allow an organism to survive at a single point in time. How is it that something like a platypus become one of a kind? Maybe it was the best at outcompeting other billed mammals. Most likely it found a unique environment that allowed it to prosper where other surrounding places would be hostile. The earth changes climate quite frequently in the grand scheme of things. What was once the king of the hill for 5,000 years could slip in an instant. To make things harder, the "physical proof" is usually destroyed with decomposers, plate tectonics and general wear and tear. It's like wondering why finding 500,000 year old human bones is still a new discovery that could "change anthropology". Same thing applies with everything else. You can't assume the earth is a garbage dump with a fresh looking copy of a 1970 edition of the Times waiting to be dug up. Good thing we have DNA, protein, geological, proximal and physiological evidence... Answer is no. If they branched off and became two species, then you can't assume that all could interbreed. There are different possibilities for this. They can arrive at the mutation differently from conditions their local environments present. One could even hypothesize epigenesis if they had sufficient proof. The mutation does not have to be the same thing even if they appear physically similar. It could be derived in parallel. This situation is similar in how some insects evolved. Some branched off from a common ancestor after the ancestor could fly. Others reinvented the wheel because of the competitive advantages it presented. Would've been a nice question to ask in class. Mutations happen commonly. Even things like speech and meta-cognition can't be considered unique. It's just that at one point in time, our ancestor was fortunate to have an energy intensive brain that didn't take away from other survival functions. Being book smart in the wild can be a handicap. Especially when humans take 9 months to labor and almost a decade before the children can fend for themselves.
You guys keep missing the point. I am not advocating Creationism. All I am saying is that scientist can not answer the question of origin--aside from logic so stupid that to believe it is no different than believing in a Creator. So you are just a simple logical person, then here is some logic for you: 1. There is a God. 2 There is not a God. 3. I believe in God. 4. I don't believe in God. Now, do a logic table with this and the math favors believing in Creator(for Atheism vs. Religion only). 1. There is a God and I believe in God====Heaven for me. 2. There is a God and I don't believe in God====Hell for me. 3. There is no God and I believe in God==I lived a moral life and lost a few Golf days on Sunday that I spent in Church. 4. There is no God and I don't believe in God==Sad and unfulfilling life with no purpose. Therefore, 3 out of 4 possibilities favors believing in a Creator.
what if I told you that you needed to pay me $1.11 every day for the rest of your life, and if you did, you can choose to reincarnate into any animal of your choice. If you didn't, you would become a pig. Let's also pretend you're rich enough to complete this task for the sake of the argument.
(1) This is a digression from the topic of this thread. There is nothing incompatible with believing in a god and evolution. (2) An honest person believes in things because they think it is true. Not because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they believe in something else.
Then the problem becomes which creator out of the 100s/1000s of religions and sects is the right one.
What does this have to deal with evolution? You're right to say evolution doesn't say anything about "where the original gases materalize from", and you're free to posit other theories like a creator, but that has nothing to do with whether evolutions is right or wrong, just like evolution says nothing about whether there is a creator or not.
Worse logic table ever. Actually not really a logic table, but let's modify this a little. Subjectivity doesn't lend itself to math well. 1.) This is a god and I believe in god == wrong god, hell for me. 2.) This is a god and I don't believe in God == hell for me 3.) There is no god and I believe in god == I am lied to and feel guilty about a lot of things I do. 4.) There is no God and I don't believe in God == I act morally anyways because I want my neighbors to treat me the same. I am my own self. 3 out of 4 for atheism there. It annoys me that people argue religion in a logic sense. It should be enough that religion and faith gives them spiritual comfort.
First, the SEC should look into your business for price fixing. Also, why are you an racist pig? . . . . Sorry, I meant an animal racist.
To expand this point, if I was just looking at the benefits, might as well go for the religion with the best benefits. I like the sound of the 72 virgins thing, but Islam seems like a lot of work with so many prayers everyday. Any religions that offer eternal sex, substance abuse and rock and roll in the afterlife without requiring too much work during one's mortal life?
Sorry, that was just a flashback from a college course in philosophy. Please redirect your attention to the following: "You guys keep missing the point. I am not advocating Creationism. All I am saying is that scientist can not answer the question of origin--aside from logic so stupid that to believe it is no different than believing in a Creator."
What is the logic you are referring to, and why do you think its stupid? If we are missing the point, may be you can try to make it more clearly. Scientists have good answers for what the universe was like in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang. On the question where the Big Bang came from and why, there are speculative theories but no one really knows. Its even possible that we can not know or understand the answer to that question. If you'd like to suggest that there was a "Creator" of some sort that set the universe in motion, I don't have a problem with it. But, again, this doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
And you're missing my point. Science can try to answer the origin... scientifically and even if it can't, it's not religion. Even if there's huge holes in the theories, it's not related to the supernatural. Even if we understand 1% of it scientifically, one is NOT the other and should never be used to explained each other. Even if it sounds absurd and improbable. I hope you don't believe Kurt Cameron prove the existence of god by using a banana.
