Evolution in action

[Aegrus]

A bit tongue in cheek: I hear much talk about "human evolution" to the next level. But how come they are not developing humans to have remote eyes - you can send them around a corner , look for your keys five places at once etc? I mean, we do not have to rely on "hit and miss" mutations and all the problems associated with irreducible complexity. We can design it and implement it? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself!!

But I suppose it is much easier to hypothesize about assumed development than actually getting something to work - like getting a living organism from non-living material - despite the Miller-Urey experiment that is cited as "proof" and with new discoveries now found to be less likely true than when it was first proposed.

The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.

This concession was made by even an honest "evolutionist" the late Dr Colin Patterson "‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’(http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-...al-fossils)

Sometimes however, this honesty is not exercised - as proven by Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man etc. etc - putting forward for fact that which is known fabrications to support a theory.

At the same time we devalue human life - such that the killing of babies after birth is discussed "( On February 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) published an article written by philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Its title was “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”)

If life is a mere "fluke", what is the value of human (or any life for that matter)? Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why? Because you are the healthiest and most "intelligent" of a "batch" of newborns whose biological mother and father can offer you the best opportunities. How many of us would have survived?

Human life has value, irrespective of your financial status, looks, IQ or any other arbitrary measure. You have value because you were in the mind of God long before you were born and He loves you, irrespective of any of the facts mentioned (Social status etc).

You clearly have no idea how evolution works, if you think it works in "levels". As for remote eyes: derp. Remote eyes would have to work through telepathy (impossible) and be separate from the human body. So they wouldn't develop with the human body. Anyway, major changes like that don't happen much at all, even over millions of years. Most of our bodily features of note (such as eyes) developed in very primitive versions back when we were clumps of a couple of cells.

As for god valueing everyone equally. . . what if you're born a woman?

I believe that people have value because we assign them value. They have no less value with or without a god- they have the same amount society has always afforded them, because society affords it to them. Taking away something that does not exist changes almost nothing. Taking away god doesn't change how I see others as people. If it would for you- get mental help.