you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The complete lack of evidence for in-between species is what makes it unlikely imo. Sure, natural selection outbred the older models, but then why are the parent species still around? And where is all the evidence that they once existed? We only have a few "fossils" which are far closer to one species than another and more likely to simply be mutants or an older version of that same species.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The complete lack of evidence for in-between species is what makes it unlikely imo.

Yes, this is precisely what I was thinking of when I said the model doesn't quite account for everything.

I think there are some suggestive clues such as the similarity of bone structures between fish fins, bird wings, and human hands. The similarity of embryo structures. The fact that all 'primates' share considerable traits and DNA, and so do all 'mammals'. This definitely has the appearance of a shared and branching ancestry.

No it can't explain a lot of things, and it IS possible that there is an entirely different explanation, but it is plausible, and I am not sure that I have heard any other particularly convincing alternatives. But at the very least, I admit we are missing substantial pieces of the puzzle if the model is correct

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just because something is similar doesn't mean it's ancestry. The similarity could also be a result of the similarity of the functions they're supposed to carry out. I feel like a real evolution process would take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it supposedly has, and the chances of every little step occurring on its own are like 0.0000000000000000000000000001%, and there had to've been billions and billions and billions of them.

I think the obvious explanation is a matrix.

[–]Bigs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just because something is similar doesn't mean it's ancestry.

Yes, yes it does.

Similarity of function also does play a role, for sure, but that undermines your own rejection of evolution - how could similarity of function make any damn difference to anything, without evolution?

Idiot.