Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Logical examples: clarify what I think was meant: I don't think anyone disagrees with the existence of H. habilis or H. erectus
Line 11: Line 11:  
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
 
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
 
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
 
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
−
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
+
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one extant species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
 
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
 
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
 
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
 
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135

edits

Navigation menu