Originally posted by: Duwelon
Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.
Science most certainly understands how different species arise, and there are multiple ways. However, I think the source of misunderstanding is complete inability to comprehend large numbers. And, the inability to comprehend how incredibly rare fossilization occurs. Go to a farmer's field in the spring, when it's being plowed. Walk around. Look at all the bones!! Oh wait, where are the bones? If the earth was even only 6000 years old, there would be 100's of thousands of bones on an acre. Go out into the countryside and attempt to count the number of squirrels, rabbits, birds, mice, woodchucks, deer, snakes, etc. on 1 acre of land. Now, realize that when they die, the odds are that none of them will every end up fossilized. Across most of the United States, there are relatively pockets where conditions will be just right that eventually things that die there will even have a miniscule chance of eventually being fossilized. Furthermore, much of the fossil record is limited to skeletal remains. Hence, how do you think it's even possible to find all these "transitional" steps? Furthermore, it's not as if every skeleton is absolutely identical. For example, there is a range in sizes of bones.
Now, consider humans in North America. Very clearly, over the past several hundred years, the average height of adults has increased. Regardless of the reason, over several hundred years, our skeletons are longer. Now, even a half million; hell, only 100,000 years into the future, looking back on the skeletons, we will NOT be capable of resolving this relatively short amount of time. i.e. if we only had skeletons from 1500 to 2000, we would not be capable of determining that we were seeing a transition toward taller humans. We would only see a range of values for heights of humans. 500 years is an incredibly insignificant amount of time. Yet, even within the human species, we can see changes.
Now, of course, humans are a poor example to use in studying evolution; that's because we can move all over the place within a relatively short amount of time. One method by which new species can arise is geographic isolation. But, I'll continue to use humans anyway. Now, according to the Bible, we all originated from Adam and Eve, or, if you want to go post Noah, ark, and menagerie of animals, then we all originate from that little group of people. Anyways, those humans spread all over the earth - Africa, Australia, The Americas, Europe, Asia. Mutations took place; those that were advantageous tended to get passed on more often than those that were disadvantageous. Of course, within Africa, for instance, there is plenty of mingling, thus these new traits get spread out within the general population. But, those traits that developed in Africa had no way of spreading to the human population in the Americas - the two groups are geographically spread out.
Now, look at some of these genes that are present in Africa that aren't present in other groups of humans. Sickle cell anemia. How the hell would sickle cell anemia be advantageous? Here's how: it protects against malaria. Why don't American Indians or Asians have that gene present? After all, we all started (according to your Bible) from the same small set of people.
Look at all the other traits that are different among the geographic groups. Skin color is just another trait that's different (and related to sunlight exposure.) From the literal interpretation of the Bible stance, all these different variations and genes must have developed within the past 6000 years. How fucking retarded do you have to be to not realize that had we not developed transportation to go from continent to continent that in 6 million years we'd be 1000 times more different than we are now? i.e. completely different species. And, for what it's worth, 6 million years is a VERY short amount of time, geographically.
Facebook
Twitter