Is a penguin a bird returning to the sea or a sea creature emerging from it? It's a bird returning to the sea. I thought this was an origin and complexity thread.
Ok, so? You're the one that said "these kinds of topics turn into religious arguments is because evolution doesn't explain creation" and "evolution doesn't explain creation". I'm simply pointing out your flawed argument/premise.
And I was repling to the opening line in the OP's opening post. "I have posted in a couple of the 'evolution' threads, but they always seem to become religious arguments, with matters of faith & belief being argued. I propose a scientific discussion of this topic, & a scientific critique of the different 'theories' of origins & increasing complexity. " They are 2 different subjects. I somehow thought this thread was about both origins (creation) and complexity (evolution).
My apologies, I totally misread your meaning to be that you were trying to say evolution should explain origins, rather than you were just pointing out that they were separate. Please, continue...
I have to repeat the question the first person who responded to this thread asked - who has made this conclusion? Names, please. Natural selection does not require increased complexity for evolution to occur, though species at times do become more complex over time. Chimpanzees and other apes have more chromosomes than human beings do. Their DNA is more complex than ours is. Ours has been simplified somewhat by combining two ape chromosomes into one (chromosome #2), as shown below: Moreover, complexity doesn't insure survival. At the height of their evolution, crinoids became very diverse, but many species also became very complex, and specialized for their environments. One whole class of crinoids became adapted to very calm water, so much so that disturbance of that water (i.e., storm waves) caused them their skeletons to fall apart, essentially killing them. This class of crinoids has the most complex skeleton of all crinoids, but they are very fragile and subject to disarticulation. Another class is less complex, though much more hardy and is much more tolerant of storm waves. So complexity is not a requirement for survival of species. Moreover, when you look at the fossil record, many species became very complex right before they went extinct. Of course, this isn't always the case, but there are many examples where it is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Next.
Chimps have been around longer than we have so you could argue that their complexity makes them better survivors. Yet I'd bet my money that we'll survive longer due to adaptation, regardless of complexity or simplicity. And some of these animals haven't evolved in over 400 million years. http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...pecies-on-earth/ss-BBi19WU?ocid=iehp#image=11
Yet we still have many single celled organisms. Humans are made of many single cell organisms as well as all other life forms.
Evolution does not require increased complexity, it only provides the traits to survive in its current environment,
You also have to take into consideration that humans provided the name and how everything is defined in what we study which may really has no basis in reality of the origin or evolution of life.
