Originally Posted by Prana25
The only thing I could really give to offer her (on our little 15 minute break) was:
1. The only problem I've found with evolution is that one species advanced drastically ahead of all other relatives that pretty much remained in close biological proximity of each other. This is likely due to the unexplained self-awareness which accelerated the process, but I can't fully buy into the idea of random genetic mutation to account for the transition of primate to advanced cognitive thought.
2. All things evolve on a scale that we can recognize. Studying etymology will easily show how language can drastically change. You can find darkened caves where fish in darkness will eventually lose their eyes for lack of necessity. Our pineal gland used to be much closer to the forehead, but for some reason, was pushed back into the center. The problem with evolution of humans is that we have a hard time really thinking about such a long span of time.
That's the real problem in my opinion. Most creationists simply don't take visual evidence and place it into the correct time frame.
Interesting. I have lots of problems with macroevolution (the idea that all living matter evolved from some unidentified blob of goo floating in water), and I'm not sure I know anyone who disbelieves generational adaptations within species. Darwin's Theory of Evolution
only identifies types of the latter, and from that he extrapolated his "grander" theory.
Two of the many things his modern-day followers can't explain (without going around the block until we're too dizzy to care) are the Cambrian explosion, when enormous amounts of "new species" suddenly appear (it isn't just one species that leaped ahead, but many, many thousands) and the evolution of complex mechanisms (this latter category is the one that Darwin himself said would throw water on his theory). For example, you can see the adapation in a species of cave fish that lose their eyes. Well, how does eyesight appear
? There are thousands of rods and cones, acting in concert, focused through a lens and then transmitted through an optic nerve to your brain, which assembles the image (inlcuding the "blind spot" we can't actually see) into your unique perspective...thousands of times a minute. So let's ignore the brain and the optic nerve and look just at the eye. The theory says it's small adaptations over several generations, with the hook being that they have to confer some survival benefit. Well, I'll grant you that a couple of rods and maybe a cone or two could mutate. But without virtually ALL of the rods and ALL of the cones, you're not even going to sense light (much less all of the rest of the eye structure). No way could that create a benefit that could be passed on. So it would die out. (Next consider the bacterial flagellum...etc.) These are highly complex mechanisms that aren't explained by the current state of the theory. (And punctuated equilibrium's attempt to explain things like the eye is more of a leap of faith than flying a wide-body into a skyscraper to reach valhalla...)
And then the leap that species evolved from completely different species...well, that's an even bigger can of worms.
Don't get me wrong. I was brought up being spoon-fed the whole "science knows all and here is some more, eat up" school of thought, and it was only in my post teen years that I began to wrinkle my brow occasionally about some of the stuff they were selling. And the more I looked, the more I wrinkled. In the end the more I study macroevolution, the more I see the holes in it and the less sway it has on me, period. I'm not just shooting from the hip on this.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that NEITHER "side" can definitively prove "their case". You can explain until you're blue in the face why I must be a complete idiot and you're surprised I can even type, but I'll still reject macroevolution until science has something to explain the holes that doesn't leave me shaking my head in stunned silence that anybody buys their explanations as plausible, much less scientific fact. So why call people idiots or morons or dumb? You might as well have the same discussion over which is the best color Mercedes to own (brilliant silver, by the way).
If you want to read a good primer on the "intelligent design (leaving God out of the equation, whatever your conception may be) vs. the theory of evolution, pick up a copy of "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" by Philip Johnson, a professor at UC Berkeley. It's 131 pages will go by in an hour or two, as I say it's a primer that will perhaps open your eyes, if not your mind. His longer work, "Darwin on Trial" is a good read but will make you work more.