Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
If evolution, is truly a game of survival of the fittest, and animals mutate into something which is the most beneficial to themselves, how could you explain the phenomenom of "fainting goats."
I mean how could it possibly benefit an animal which is being attacked, to fall over, and stiffen up, and not move, and essentially allow their enemy to consume them with no contest?
I would love for someone to explain how the evolutionary chain, and Darwinism allowed this to happen.
Pure darwinism would have eliminated animals like this a long time ago.
There is absolutely no benefit to a goat "fainting" when it is attacked, and this is where i think that there is holes in the pure "evolution, survival of the fittest" argument.
In fact this is a quality that is completely detrimental to their survival, so random mutation should have eliminated it.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/we9_CdNPuJg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I mean how could it possibly benefit an animal which is being attacked, to fall over, and stiffen up, and not move, and essentially allow their enemy to consume them with no contest?
I would love for someone to explain how the evolutionary chain, and Darwinism allowed this to happen.
Pure darwinism would have eliminated animals like this a long time ago.
There is absolutely no benefit to a goat "fainting" when it is attacked, and this is where i think that there is holes in the pure "evolution, survival of the fittest" argument.
In fact this is a quality that is completely detrimental to their survival, so random mutation should have eliminated it.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/we9_CdNPuJg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from Gabfly1:
Except for the fact that a lot of it looks like unintelligent design when taken as a snapshot, as noted by Dawkins himself because of the laborious bottom-up tweaking that is evolution, stemming from natural selection of random mutations.
So they just developed these attributes in the last 500 years, once they became domesticated?
You must have proof of this. I agree with "natural selection" but "natural selection" doesnt explain this behaviour which should make them extinct over night.
Feel free to point out the progression of these animals evolving over time and making themselves more, and more useless, over the course of a couple centuries.
Please explain how this animal created such a detrimental quality, over a couple centuries, based on natural selection.
Doesnt it take millions of years for animals to evolve?
You must have proof of this. I agree with "natural selection" but "natural selection" doesnt explain this behaviour which should make them extinct over night.
Feel free to point out the progression of these animals evolving over time and making themselves more, and more useless, over the course of a couple centuries.
Please explain how this animal created such a detrimental quality, over a couple centuries, based on natural selection.
Doesnt it take millions of years for animals to evolve?
Here is another reason why "natural selection" doesnt make any sense.
We evolved from "tree dweling monkeys" right?
So at what point did it become beneficial for humans to no longer swing from trees? Swinging from trees was something that should have been a quality we should have held on to. (based on natural selection)
There is absolutely nothing, that is beneficial to us as humans that would entail us getting rid of the ability to swing from trees and climb them very efficiently,if the need were to arise.
So why did we evolve out of that quality?
Look, i believe in evolution, but i also know that there is gaping holes in the theory of evolution/natural selection, which fail to explain most of what is currently happening with life on planet earth.
We evolved from "tree dweling monkeys" right?
So at what point did it become beneficial for humans to no longer swing from trees? Swinging from trees was something that should have been a quality we should have held on to. (based on natural selection)
There is absolutely nothing, that is beneficial to us as humans that would entail us getting rid of the ability to swing from trees and climb them very efficiently,if the need were to arise.
So why did we evolve out of that quality?
Look, i believe in evolution, but i also know that there is gaping holes in the theory of evolution/natural selection, which fail to explain most of what is currently happening with life on planet earth.
Here is an example of what im talking about..... and some comedic relief....
Why would natural selection allow this monkey to drop from the tree and live exclusively on the ground, When he is quite comfortable fucking with predators from a tree. How can "natural selection" explain the fact that a monkey in a tree is more than willing to fuck with a tiger, while a human on the ground has no such luck.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5qqdovHOgvU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Why would natural selection allow this monkey to drop from the tree and live exclusively on the ground, When he is quite comfortable fucking with predators from a tree. How can "natural selection" explain the fact that a monkey in a tree is more than willing to fuck with a tiger, while a human on the ground has no such luck.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5qqdovHOgvU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The stupidity level in this thread is way too high for my standard, but just for educational purposes...
The first sentence from Wiki explains your problem:
"A fainting goat is a breed of domestic goat...."
In plain English, in the wild the fainting goat wouldn't survive, it only survives as a domesticated animal.
"The existence of fainting goats doesn't disprove evolution." --- Matthew (or was it Luke?)
The first sentence from Wiki explains your problem:
"A fainting goat is a breed of domestic goat...."
In plain English, in the wild the fainting goat wouldn't survive, it only survives as a domesticated animal.
"The existence of fainting goats doesn't disprove evolution." --- Matthew (or was it Luke?)
