Giasi It is not black and white. I am an aetheist and a deep believer in evolution and natural selection but I am quite content for you to believe in god. My arguments against religion were not about evolution but about free sex. Lili brought up Darwin
Evolution doesn't say there is no god it just says that god is not needed to explain the development of the species and in fact it says that his/her involvement is unlikely (you just wouldn't design things the way they are). That said there is nothing to say that a god didn't create the laws of physics and chemistry that all functions operate by. He/she could then just sit back and watch it all progress.
Everyone find the concept difficult. It is incredibly hard to comprehend the level of complexity without intelligence but it can be done. I refer you again to the writings of Richard Dawkins. Very easy to understand even for a non biologist/scientist.
Demonstrating the how is not very difficult if I understand your meaning of how. Remember that every single domestic dog is descended from wolves. USing man instead of nature to choose what charateristics are transferred genetically from one generation to the next we now have chihuahuas and poodles and dachshunds.
Why is it such a big step to say that when nature "chooses" i.e. the slight increased chances of survival to an leaf eating animal with a longer neck (can reach higher branches) would mean that its genetic material DNA is more likely to be passed on to its offspring (by being able to eat leaves that most other animals can't reach it is more likely to reach sexual maturity). This cycle of favouring the animal which is more likely to survive will result in the giraffe in due course.
Giasi It is not black and white. I am an aetheist and a deep believer in evolution and natural selection but I am quite content for you to believe in god. My arguments against religion were not about evolution but about free sex. Lili brought up Darwin
Evolution doesn't say there is no god it just says that god is not needed to explain the development of the species and in fact it says that his/her involvement is unlikely (you just wouldn't design things the way they are). That said there is nothing to say that a god didn't create the laws of physics and chemistry that all functions operate by. He/she could then just sit back and watch it all progress.
Everyone find the concept difficult. It is incredibly hard to comprehend the level of complexity without intelligence but it can be done. I refer you again to the writings of Richard Dawkins. Very easy to understand even for a non biologist/scientist.
Demonstrating the how is not very difficult if I understand your meaning of how. Remember that every single domestic dog is descended from wolves. USing man instead of nature to choose what charateristics are transferred genetically from one generation to the next we now have chihuahuas and poodles and dachshunds.
Why is it such a big step to say that when nature "chooses" i.e. the slight increased chances of survival to an leaf eating animal with a longer neck (can reach higher branches) would mean that its genetic material DNA is more likely to be passed on to its offspring (by being able to eat leaves that most other animals can't reach it is more likely to reach sexual maturity). This cycle of favouring the animal which is more likely to survive will result in the giraffe in due course.
Anyway read the book.