When people get asked about evolution there should be a qualifier about what kind of evolution you are talking about. There is Micro evolution, which boils down to specific traits and features that can transfer and shift from parents to offspring that gradually creates different species, which is what Darwin actually documented on his trip. The other is Macro evolution, which is the whole goo to the zoo to you theory which is what most people think of today. Micro evolution is well documented, and reasonably observable, and in some cases recrateable and forced, as in the case of various breeds of dogs, horses, cows and other animals. Macro Evolution on the other hand has a few problems for me. One there is a distinct lack of transition speicies, both now and in the fossil record that are clearly both one major type and another. Im not talking mixture of breeds of dogs but half fish half reptile or half reptile half mammal kinda critter. The generational timeframe that would require should have left relatively larger amounts of fossils for those types of critters than for the confirmed fossil ancestry of other animals we do have, such as the horse and ryhno which we can see clear ancestral relations through the various fossil records we do have. If anybody says that the lack of known fossils does not mean they are not there then the same argument could be used regarding several religions as well.
My other major doubt with Macro evolution is one described best by a book called Darwins Black Box by Michael J. Behe who (at the time of writing it back in 1996 anyway) was an associate professor of Biochemestry at Lehigh University. The book ascribes to the point that there are somethings that are irriducibly complex in order to work. a basic example is a mousetrap that is composed of the spring, catch, hammerbar, holding bar and base. You need all these parts for the mouse trap to work becuase with out any one of them the mousetrap won't work. He then goes on to describe how Biochemically there are parts of anything that need everything to be there in order for them to work as they do and diagrams examples like eyes of animals from jelly fish up to us, and bacteria parts in single cell organisms. Each of these objects had to have all the parts that make them work there at the same time as the difference in the stages would have been to prohibitive and detrimental to the function of the part in question to have occured one stage/part at a time.
Hopefully this will give people some things to think on.
My other major doubt with Macro evolution is one described best by a book called Darwins Black Box by Michael J. Behe who (at the time of writing it back in 1996 anyway) was an associate professor of Biochemestry at Lehigh University. The book ascribes to the point that there are somethings that are irriducibly complex in order to work. a basic example is a mousetrap that is composed of the spring, catch, hammerbar, holding bar and base. You need all these parts for the mouse trap to work becuase with out any one of them the mousetrap won't work. He then goes on to describe how Biochemically there are parts of anything that need everything to be there in order for them to work as they do and diagrams examples like eyes of animals from jelly fish up to us, and bacteria parts in single cell organisms. Each of these objects had to have all the parts that make them work there at the same time as the difference in the stages would have been to prohibitive and detrimental to the function of the part in question to have occured one stage/part at a time.
Hopefully this will give people some things to think on.
)
