Just out of curiosity what exactly would convince the evos that their theory is false?
An act of special creation, like dogs giving birth to an population of animals with wheels or evidence that such an act like that happened in the past. Instead we have evidence that dogs and cats radiated from an ancestral population of non-dog, non-cat predatory mammals. Instead, we have man-like great apes shading into ape-like men in such perfect agreement with the hypothesis of stepwise change that even creationists don't consistently draw a line separating man from ape. It is not the "evos" who are willfully blind to the evidence.
It appears that your aforementioned curiosity is short-lived.
I mean does anybody really believe they are descended from a fish?
Geologists and Biologists of every stripe do. Neil Shubin wrote a book laying out your essential fishiness. Moreover, even ancient anatomists identified homologous structures in fish and men. It's not deceptive to call a fish-brain a brain or a fish-heart a heart or a fish-spine a spine or a fish-eye an eye. The analogies are exact in morphology, development and genetics. Surgeons practice on other mammals because our closer cousins are laid out similarly to us.
Nobody would believe that there is nobody writing this post, and yet this post is simple compared to the simplest bacterium. Somebody must have written this post and yet nobody wrote the DNA code for the simplest bacterium?
Then why did the DNA code for trillions of bacteria change over tens of thousands of generations in the
long term experiment? Or why did the DNA code for other bacteria
change to eat a food which never before existed in the natural world? Clearly this is evidence that the creation of complex traits is ongoing. Like the electron clinging to the proton, scientists hypothesized a natural mechanism with regular and predictable phenomena was the explanation. Experiment and observation comport with that predictive hypothesis. Now if you want to trivialize your purported author, you can have said author simultaneously upholding all or any natural phenomena in the natural universe -- deciding every roll of the dice in Vegas, ensuring your choice of sexual lubricant is has its rheology just so, but such an author seems pretty damn shy and subservient. Is it your position that when I flick on a light switch that I am making the author of mankind bend to my will and
fiat lux? Medieval conceptions of said author as the lord of the universe would find that ridiculous (or blasphemous) and pretty much assumed that said author built systems that take care of themselves (via discoverable natural laws). The biology of humans depends on a great number of natural laws that work perfectly fine in settings far removed from the human body. Radioactive nuclei decay, chemical reactions tick, glycoproteins are sticky, elastic parts bounce, liquid things flow, etc. So if the biology of humans is so dependent on natural law, why not the origin of humans? You are making a special pleading that the origin of humans is special in the universe with nothing backing that up.
And by claiming humans have an author, each design defect in humans that inflicts suffering is attributable to such an author. Women, in your view, are built to suffer in childbirth, something that they simply don't
have to do. Auto-immune disease is when the jury-rigged immune response decides to eat the body. Hare-lips, chromosomal abnormalities and mutations, horrific developmental deformities, getting hit in the testicles -- the suffering of humans from your purported author are great. And what's the plot? What great moral lesson should we take from all the different ways one can get cancer or express hemophilia?
But you also confuse complexity with evidence of
design. Complexity in human-built systems results typically from lack of design. Streams meander in complex ways both in reality and in computer simulation, where the latter is mathematically devoid of design. Evolution and human design share a trial-and-error process to improve the product -- evolution is more likely to result in complexity because unlike human design evolution has no design principles to remove scaffolding and loose bits as long as they don't regularly get in the way. As a result, the giraffe vagus nerve takes a path no human designer would have OKed. The history of life shows a history of off-label reuse, duplication and modification that comports to the evolution model. Thus, as with the assertion the personal intervention of the author of everything is required to make your mattress springs bounce up and down, the assertion that humans have an author indicts said author as someone who apes the process of pathetic natural evolution.
Your testicles are reused from other species with testicles hanging outside their bodies because they require lower-than-body temperatures for sperm to develop. Fish and amphibians have internal testes -- decent protection. Squirrels have retractable testicles -- a useful feature in the fight. So as you lie there on the ground, curled up in a fetal position, you have to ask yourself how your author is to be known from such work?
My argument from before still stands, children resemble their parents because they have received their genetic code from them. Everybody knows this.
No new information means no evolution.
Actually, shuffled information is new information. Mutated information is new information. Information with new duplicated sequences is new information. Your argument appears to be based on ignorance and a
non sequitur and thus does not stand, now or ever.
There are considered three major racial groups of mankind: white, black, and asian.
Racist partitioning of humanity by skin color is ignorant. The pattern of human populations is far different than you assume. Australians, South Americans, Hawaiians, Pygmies, the list goes on. Moreover, where populations cluster in tribal patterns (like "the French") those populations have reasonable good clustering in a cladogram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Therefore, as we go forward in time there will still be white, black, and asian people because it is simply different combinations of pre-existing genetic information.
So where does Tiger Woods, the mestizos of Mexico, and countless other reshufflings of formerly separate gene pools fit into your ignorant view?
If we go back in time there were white, black, and asian people. Therefore, man has always existed in its present form and will continue to exist in its present form.
Since "man has always existed in its present form" you eliminate your proposal that man needs an author. Since "[man] will continue to exist in its present form" you eliminate the need to give famine relief or worry about genocide. You have asserted ignorance and in ignorance defeat your own proposal.
Just a question for the evos, what examples of beneficial mutations do we have of coming into existence and becoming widespread in a population?
The mutations must meet the following criteria:
1. It must be 'new'. It can't be part of the genetic variation that was built into the creation from the beginning.
2. It must produce some kind of noticeable advantage.
3. We know that it has become more widespread in the population because of this advantage.
There is considerable tension between 1 and 3 -- if it's fixed you will claim it has always been fixed. If its new and has not had time to be fixed, you will claim it is not advantageous enough to be fixed.
However, we have seen some traits evolve in the last 100 years: Nylon-precursor-eating bacteria, E. Coli evolving to eat citrate in the presence of oxygen. And of course there are examples of mutations leading to new traits in historical times -- nearly every pest, bug and bacteria that evolves resistance to the chemicals that we try to kill it with is a newly mutated trait. See also
Other New traits
And some humans have adaptations that makes them distinct from other groups: Some East Africans have adaptations for long-distance running while some West African populations have adapations for sprinting.
Not yet widely fixed: humans with super-dense bones, humans with myotonic hypertrophy. But both are heritable.
