Evolution Logic

if someone did they don't understand how it all works then, what they might have meant was that whales share a common ancestor - or you may have misunderstood them well yes they differ but they are alike too, they have legs, lungs, eyes, organs, ect, infact they differ less than you seem to think they do any evidence of this?, i've read black people have smaller brains than eurpeans (i don't believe this eather) i'm starting to think brain size isn't that much of an impact on intellegence. example the "hobbits" scientists have been finding, they are found with stone tools and other things and have a culture but have a smaller brain that us supposed? its well supported, its not complete and i doubt it will ever be in creationists views - heres a nice site on it from T.O Hominid Species how is this relevent its not even arguing agenst the post, they never said anything about erectus, the fact that they arn't exact doesn't mean they are wrong all i see is you are running out of arguments uh what? i think you need to go read what a hominid is first, of course its a hominid, cro magnon isn't a modern human, which is homo sapian sapian, there are differences between modern humans and archic man, you need to go read about it though what does the way its made have to do with tooth decay? honey is sugar as much as the things you listed wolves have a more complex language than we do, they use movement smell and sound to communicate - we only view ours as complex because other animals languages make no sense to us true it is not guided by intelligence, do you really think intelligence would allow stupid faulty things such as the apendix to exist? i mean an organ that doesn't function the way it used to and is dangerus to a good percent of humans - or a back bone that isn't bult for standing on two legs fully? even from human design i can tell no one would do that
what life is guided by is pressure from the envirnment, and natural selection the eyes similarities end at seeing in color and being an eye, the envirment is so different that there is very little similarity between them universal common decent (one line of decent) isn't fully accepted, but most people accept common decent - the ancester would be really far back between the two right before backbones i would say bacteria has more genetic code, considering the rate of mutation and how long its been around, but i may well need some help from a microbiologist you need to see the big picture, populations evolve not indivigals, so something with a mutation that helps will survive to produce while the ones that don't will die out - for someone who says they understand NS, you have to ask this question?
if a gene that leads to survival is there the other 99% doesn't matter if it leads to survival they didn't learn anything, they evolved having a straighter frame to survive, this is the basic structure of NS, if the requirment to survive and pass genes on is to have a straighter back then those that have a mutation that causes this would survive while those that did not wouldn't, thus the next generation would have this trait thus the lifeform would continue
your argument sounds too lamarkian and lamark was put to rest years ago many have written about evolution and emotion, the vertict is that emotion evolved to help survival of a population, after all lifeforms tend to survive better if they have a strong bond to thier mates
NS is the filter, mutation is the cause of change the problem is this doens't work, what is life? what is non-life? there is hardly a line between the two, are viruses alive?
what is the difference between a dead person and a living? basically an electronic spark causing the brain to do things - why couldn't a mixure of chemecals that are very much like the ones that make up our bodies get hit and form the beginings of what we term life?who is to say god didn't start evolution? theh thing is how life started is irrelevent to a theory about how life changes through envirmental forces - whether it was by gods hand or by nature is not that important - scientists thing it is from natural causes because god is not testible or verifible you need to stop reading creationist propaganda sites, i've read this before and its wrong, all the oxygen in our atmosphere is organic - produced by organisms, none of it is inorganic, plus i think you mean water not hydrogen because the parent species survives longer than the daughter species, maybe the split was a short event such as a rock slide that split two groups, one had a niche but the other moved and they surived for a while then died out - then the parent died no because a huge quick flood would leave too many markers and would not show up the way things look, have you ever looked at a picture of say the grand cannon?
its layers on layers with order, floods wouldn't do that - think about it the reason it has layers, is that it was put down over time by different things a huge flood would leave one layer not more than onelocal floods would be plausable lots and lots of time, trying to survive envierment changes its not a contradiction, its just not meaningful, macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale, its all the same, science doesn't differate the two much what do you mean by information? single cells tend to mutate more so have more information, but a microbiologist would know more about it wow, just wow, do you really think humans don't die? we only live max now of 75 years on average, but the birth/death rate was pretty high before 19th century, most people through out the ages were lucky to make it a quarter of that
how is a theory flawed if you make a strawman arguement like this?
oh yes by the way we do have way too many humans now, though its not because of evolution they have, but plants have less features than animals and evolve at a slower rate, i figure because they can't move much. i've seen "trees" for non-seed plants and seed-plants. the thing is we don't learn all that much from plants evolution so why make priorities about something that really doesn't progress us in understanding? they are mistakes your grasp of evolution is flawed, if you make an unthinking mistake as arguing that evolution is flawed because you believe we would have more people than we do, i mean come on, forgeting people die?

sorry at the time it was a bit late so it may not have been as deep as i wanted, i thought more on it and realized that they study how plants evolve natural defences we can use i'd like to learn more about plants, the way they evolved from non-seed producers to seed producers was interesting *shrug* i'll look that up then

no no i meant that comparing the two was not much of an arguement since the only relation was they where both forms of eyes and saw in color i agree it was so far back its kind of irrelevent, since they are like comparing bats wings with birds wings

The only time i've heard of anyone claiming that brain size effects intellegence on adverage seems to be white nationalists claiming the size of black peoples brains makes them stupid
brain size may differ between groups on adverage but no one seems to be able to equate intellence and brain size with evidence
i guess WN's like to conflate the difference to sway the ignorent