Evolution. As an explanation, is it really good enough?
Created | Updated Mar 29, 2002
It's always bugged me that eveolutionists can
explain everything as either the effect of evolution or a byproduct
of evolution. Take eye colour. There is no evolutionary
advantage I can discern in a particular eye colour - yet why then is there variation? Evolutionists explain this in terms of the natural variability of our genetic makeup, and that eye colour is a no-impact variation iluustrating that variability is inherent in all biological features.
Yet this is a self fulfilling prophecy. How can evolutionary theory be challenged if the theory states every aspect of biological diversity is controlled by evolution either working or not working?
And why is there little or no eye color variation in other species?
Why should humans be subject to this variation when noone else is?
explain everything as either the effect of evolution or a byproduct
of evolution. Take eye colour. There is no evolutionary
advantage I can discern in a particular eye colour - yet why then is there variation? Evolutionists explain this in terms of the natural variability of our genetic makeup, and that eye colour is a no-impact variation iluustrating that variability is inherent in all biological features.
Yet this is a self fulfilling prophecy. How can evolutionary theory be challenged if the theory states every aspect of biological diversity is controlled by evolution either working or not working?
And why is there little or no eye color variation in other species?
Why should humans be subject to this variation when noone else is?
