Critique of evolution

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But my whole argument is that Broccoli and Wild Cabbage are so different that they are completely different plants.

But not so different that they cannot breed with each other.

At what point does micro-evolution become macro-evolution? Are you arguing that the defining line is if one species can breed with another?

Yes.

Sadly the Zonkey is a sterile creature, similar to the Mule and Liger, so it cannot produce offspring of its own.

Seems like even micro-evolution has it's limits.

Would it be fair to say its possible that Donkeys and Zebras shared a common ancestor?

Given that their DNA is compatible, it's fair to say it's possible. That's still not the Darwinian origin story though. Do you believe that all creatures on Earth descended from LUCA? That all creatures evolved from a single celled organism?

 

[Bizet]

In Europe, if people didn’t plan ahead, they’d freeze to death in the winter. Only the smartest survived and passed on their genes. But in warmer climates, there wasn’t that same pressure. People could afford to be less intelligent and still survive and pass on there genes.

So, evolution perfectly explains why Europeans tend to have higher IQs that some other groups of people.

So my question is, if evolution didn't happen (and I really want to believe it didn't), then why do we have such disparities in IQ between different groups of people?

Thanks.

 

[KomnenAl]

In Europe, if people didn’t plan ahead, they’d freeze to death in the winter. Only the smartest survived and passed on their genes. But in warmer climates, there wasn’t that same pressure. People could afford to be less intelligent and still survive and pass on there genes.

So, evolution perfectly explains why Europeans tend to have higher IQs that some other groups of people.

So my question is, if evolution didn't happen (and I really want to believe it didn't), then why do we have such disparities in IQ between different groups of people?

Thanks.

Nice theory. Too bad it's nonsensical. Civilization arose in warmer climates. Only outcasts and barbarians would live in the cold, because there was enough space in warm territories for everyone. Incompetent people couldn't compete in the south, so they fled to emtpy lands. Then the northern hordes invaded the civilized South and ruined everything. The so-called European civilization is a product of the Church (the real one, the Orthodox).

 

[Bizet]

Nice theory. Too bad it's nonsensical. Civilization arose in warmer climates. Only outcasts and barbarians would live in the cold, because there was enough space in warm territories for everyone. Incompetent people couldn't compete in the south, so they fled to emtpy lands. Then the northern hordes invaded the civilized South and ruined everything. The so-called European civilization is a product of the Church (the real one, the Orthodox).

This doesn’t answer my question about why IQ disparities exist; in fact, it seems to support my theory.

While civilizations did flourish in the warmer regions early on, they were conquered by those from the north. Surviving in harsher, colder climates required people to develop superior toughness, resourcefulness, and strategic thinking.

Look at the Vikings and Mongols. Their invasions led to advancements of the societies they encountered, contributing to the creation of medieval Europe.

Also, I choose to see migration to colder regions as a sign of courage and pioneering spirit, not incompetence. The ambition and resilience required to endure such hardships are traits that are uniquely European.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In Europe, if people didn’t plan ahead, they’d freeze to death in the winter. Only the smartest survived and passed on their genes. But in warmer climates, there wasn’t that same pressure. People could afford to be less intelligent and still survive and pass on there genes.

So, evolution perfectly explains why Europeans tend to have higher IQs that some other groups of people.

So my question is, if evolution didn't happen (and I really want to believe it didn't), then why do we have such disparities in IQ between different groups of people?

Thanks.

You guys keep giving examples of micro-evolution and don't seem to be familiar with Darwin's theory. What does people being cooped up inside during the winter have to do with the transmutation of species?

Last I checked, Europe was getting taken over by low-IQ people from hot climates, so much for survival of the fittest.

 

[Blade Runner]

Various people here may be confusing selection with "evolution", the latter of which is hard to define but generally carries a larger (origins) theory with it.

The ancestors of eurasians, in general, "evolved" in colder climates and yes that is most likely why they have higher IQs and they are more related, also having neanderthal DNA while sub-saharan africans, for example, do not. It gets even more specific than that among the European and Asian groups, as you will see that Europeans and Northern Asian groups are the most related, and also have the higher IQ (for example, the northern chinese, mongolians, japanese and koreans).

Since humans can all mate, of course they are the same species. But as others have pointed out, this is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, and there are subspecies that also are part of the nomenclature. Like all species, if you mate the subspecies and obliterate it (combine different types by overcoming previous environmental or geographic constraints as is today with humans), it will begin to lose the distinctness it had before, which could be a number of particular qualities, maturation, r vs k rearing, etc.

Note now that without a harsh(er) environment, and the printing of money and societalized technology or larger government systems, selection is generally towards a lower IQ type of human, what some would call dysgenic. We've talked about this a lot here, and I think most are aware. Selection doesn't have to be positive or beneficial, of course, as we've seen with the population boom, quality of any given individual (and almost by definition I argue) goes down.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

In Europe, if people didn’t plan ahead, they’d freeze to death in the winter. Only the smartest survived and passed on their genes. But in warmer climates, there wasn’t that same pressure. People could afford to be less intelligent and still survive and pass on there genes.

So, evolution perfectly explains why Europeans tend to have higher IQs that some other groups of people.

So my question is, if evolution didn't happen (and I really want to believe it didn't), then why do we have such disparities in IQ between different groups of people?

Thanks.

Think in reverse.

God gave Aryan and Slavic men Europe and Russia specifically because they had better night vision, higher IQ, lower melanin, higher trust societies.

They were literally designed for it.

The real question should be, if everyone but Noah died in the flood, how is it that people in different countries are so different?

Same with all men and women being descended from Adam and Eve.

Did God change the genes of Noah's descendants so that they would adapt to each climate?

Would we even recognise the ethnicities of people in Noah's, or Adams time? Or were they the same as today's?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The real question should be, if everyone but Noah died in the flood, how is it that people in different countries are so different?

This is why I leave room for micro-evolution. Humans can adapt to their environments and their genes can mutate. This is not the same thing as the Darwinian scheme.

Darwinism wishes to smuggle in the entire macro-evolution scheme by proving "change." We all see that there is change, but what is the nature of that change? Do species change from one species into another entirely like the secularists say? No, they don't. Do creatures experience genetic mutation and you can see examples of this in selective breeding? Sure.

The thing about gene mutation is that it is a loss of information. In other words, the genes are already there, but they are either damaged or turned off in the case of mutation. So when mutations do occur, it is not the Darwinian fantasy of a species morphing into something new entirely. It's better to think of mutation as rearranging the deck.

 

[Australia Sucks]

You guys keep giving examples of micro-evolution

I specifically used the example of a zebra and a donkey which are two completely different animals and yet they can breed together. How is that micro-evolution?

To me it definitely seems like macro evolution because they appear to have evolved from a common ancestor yet they are different enough that it is usually difficult for them to cross breed and when they do the offspring is usually infertile and the fact that they have a different number of chromosomes.

So clearly comparing a zebra to a donkey is not the same as comparing one type of dog to another breed of dog (for example all domesticated dog breeds have 78 chromosomes). They are two distinct animals which evolved from the same ancestor hence macro evolution.

 

[Bizet]

Various people here may be confusing selection with "evolution", the latter of which is hard to define but generally carries a larger (origins) theory with it.

You're right, I was, thanks for the reminder.

I can easily believe that God created Adam and Eve, and as humanity spread after the flood, and various traits, including intelligence, developed in response to environmental conditions.

However, you brought up Neanderthal DNA. If everyone was wiped out during the flood except for Noah's family, how do we explain the existence of Neanderthal genetics?

Could it be that Neanderthals also survived the flood? Or perhaps the Neanderthals were the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis, who interbred with our ancestors before the flood and passed on their DNA through Noah and his descendants?

Thanks for all your input everyone. I really enjoy these thought-provoking discussions

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I specifically used the example of a zebra and a donkey which are two completely different animals and yet they can breed together.

They are not so completely different that their DNA is incompatible. They are different like a Pit Bull is different from a Labrador. If you want to see completely different animals, try breeding a human with a mouse. They are unable to do so, despite having very similar DNA. Same goes for humans and primates.

The zebradonkey ends up sterile anyway, so how is it a slam-dunk argument for evolution? If anything, it seems to be a good argument against evolution, since it demonstrates that mutations and selective breeding do not necessarily go "up" towards better surviveability, which is the key assumption behind Darwinism.

 

[Lawrence87]

Most mutations are neutral. Which means it takes a long time for a mutation to hit the target of actually doing something. Of those that actually do something the majority are going to be harmful, because there are more ways to break something than to improve it. Hitting the bullseye is so rare that even with the addition of vast amounts of time it still seems incredibly unlikely that something like an eye could develop through this process.

 

[Blade Runner]

You're right, I was, thanks for the reminder.

I can easily believe that God created Adam and Eve, and as humanity spread after the flood, and various traits, including intelligence, developed in response to environmental conditions.

However, you brought up Neanderthal DNA. If everyone was wiped out during the flood except for Noah's family, how do we explain the existence of Neanderthal genetics?

Could it be that Neanderthals also survived the flood? Or perhaps the Neanderthals were the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis, who interbred with our ancestors before the flood and passed on their DNA through Noah and his descendants?

Thanks for all your input everyone. I really enjoy these thought-provoking discussions

These are interesting questions. I don't know the answer. I don't read every last part of Genesis, or most of it, literally - neither did the holy fathers - so I don't think I believe, or have to believe, that "everyone was wiped out". In my view, there were types of beings that were prominent on the earth that were wiped out, and this is the main gist of the story.

If I had to guess, I'd take the view that the Earth is really, really old, but humans as we know them today are a different form from other beings. Even so, "we" have probably been around for 50-200k years. The year thing with the universe and the creation is also a curveball, because we don't know if time actually has always passed in the same way we see it, measure it and experiment with it right now. I'd say the same thing about nuclear decay and physics. It's possible that the view currently that disintegrations happen empirically right now and that they always have been like that, seems to be likely, but it's not known or even provable either way.