Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, we'd still be witnessing the effects with mutations on some macro degree, but we're not. Species are becoming extinct, not becoming more abundant. In fact for higher species, it appears evident that Darwinian evolution is over. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution isn't over. Bird flu is a mutation that allows the organism to thrive by increasing the number of other organisms it is able to infect. Or to bring this closer to home, humans are still evolving. Compare average height over the last couple hundred years and the fact is that average height is increasing. Ask 10,000 women if they prefer their men to be taller and you'll find the source of the increased height. Women prefer on average taller men, the genes for height get spread more easily because they're more likely in taller men who get laid more. This also produces taller women though so the next generation continues to grow the overall average because the blokes have to be yet taller. When will it end? Prolly when we hit the point of too tall and our skeletal structure or lung capacity doesn't develop at the same rate causing flaws which hinder the ability of the too tall to get laid. I know better healthcare and nutrition has helped growth so producing taller people which maybe reduces the effectiveness of this example, I haven't looked it up.

One documented example of evolution is the black moth in the UK. Macro evolution is still going and we're seeing it even though the process is very very slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, if you want to call that evolution. What you still don't have and never will because it don't exist is speciation.

[chezlaw]

Hi Sharkey

chez

[txag007]

You've got to be kidding me!

This:

[ QUOTE ]
Or to bring this closer to home, humans are still evolving. Compare average height over the last couple hundred years and the fact is that average height is increasing. Ask 10,000 women if they prefer their men to be taller and you'll find the source of the increased height. Women prefer on average taller men, the genes for height get spread more easily because they're more likely in taller men who get laid more. This also produces taller women though so the next generation continues to grow the overall average because the blokes have to be yet taller. When will it end? Prolly when we hit the point of too tall and our skeletal structure or lung capacity doesn't develop at the same rate causing flaws which hinder the ability of the too tall to get laid.

[/ QUOTE ]
...somehow supports this:

[ QUOTE ]
Macro evolution is still going and we're seeing it even though the process is very very slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone else see a problem here?

[Sharkey]

Greetings, Chez (at law, I take it).

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, one more reply....

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

they always say history repeats itself



[/ QUOTE ]

What I find amusing is that in the last three years, the only two posters to have ever put me on ignore are Sharkey and Skidoo.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, one more reply....

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

I found this in one of my replies to Sharkey in the "Does the appendix have a purpose?" thread, and it still applies:

Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to incite as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate share of the collective attention span.

(An example of the above behaviour is)...intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

What motivates a troll?
Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over statements from total strangers is entertaining. This could be categorized as a form of schadenfreude - trolls with amusement motives deriving pleasure from the actual frustration/anger/pain (or what they may perceive in their own minds as such) from their targets. This type of trolling is common on Internet forums.
Anger: Some people use trolling to express their hostility to a group or point of view.

[Sharkey]

I don't have you on ignore, sweet guy. What do you want to talk about?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I say this because it seems that if the neo-Darwinist hypothesis was true, it would still be true. In other words, we'd still be witnessing the effects with mutations on some macro degree, but we're not. Species are becoming extinct, not becoming more abundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're misunderstanding evolutionary theory. Why do you expect species to continuously become more numerous? Why is extinction a mark against our theory of evolution? And what kind of time frame are you thinking of?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have you on ignore, sweet guy. What do you want to talk about?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't have me on ignore, it's because you took me off ignore. I guess curiosity got the better of you.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Compare average height over the last couple hundred years and the fact is that average height is increasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Ben,

Go back to evolution 101.

Two hundred years of average human height increasing is unlikely to have anything to do with evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

bugger - is it possible to redeem myself with the link to the evolution of the moth thing?

Moth wiki

and then some observed cases of speciation (macroevolution?)

observed speciation