Science, Creation & EvolutionHow do creationists explain atavisms?You raise some interesting questions. I admit that I do not have the knowledge to answer them, and trying to do this will probably make me end up writing things that are plain silly. Since biologists don't know of any ways that cells produce new protein (as you write), you cannot be sure that the process you describe WILL indeed happen... More convident about the next points: I think there is: The pressure from its environment (you corrected me once by using these words when I wrote that nothing drives evolution. I was in that case trying to make a point that there is no intelligence behind evolution, but you interpreted my text in a slightly different -more litteral- way. I should have written 'no one' drives evolution). Animals ADAPT to their environment. You accept 'micro-evolution', the form of evolution that let the Darwin finches 'radiate' into different species of finch, which originated from a single ancestor. Apparently, the world in which the animal lives is somehow favouring certain animals: Natural selection. The same process of natural selection can explain this: Both an 'intelligent designer' as 'natural selection' would have favoured an airhole on the top of the whale's head. I think this argument will lead to a stalemate.... I disagree. The fact ALONE that land animals' legs appear on an aquatic animal is proof enough for me. And all the other evidence I have posted in the previous post only supports that further. By the way: You have not adressed the 'snake with legs' bit. How do you explain that both whales and snakes - creatures without legs - grow legs from your point of view? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame