What is your take on creationism/creationists?

[miz1q2w3e]

Scoobes said:

miz1q2w3e said:

this would probably be happening before developing a conventional reproductive system so 'natural selection' would have occured after all those things and offspring would not have any place in this equation. does anyone else think this makes sense?

Anyway, natural selection would actually still be putting pressures on all these single celled and multi-celled organisms prior to the advent of sexual reproduction. Just because they're reproducing asexually, doesn't mean they're not subject to the environmental selection pressures that sexually reproducing organisms are.

yeah, i agree. i meant to say the natural selection due to mutation of an organism's offspring wouldn't have occured yet.

so being 'born' with the beginnings of an eye or a leg probably would not have been occuring since sexual reproduction wouldn't have been possible at the times that those organs that gave a survival advantage were in fact still being developed or 'evolved'. the first to successfully evelove enough to gain the advantage would be the dominant organism

thus the argument "any first component of any of these things [body parts, like a primative eye for example] is useless and would not cause natural selection to take over" can not be used against evolution

you might ask how could this hypothetical, "still evolving" organism be able to survive if it still hasn't got the body parts that give it the survival advantage yet, it only has useless primative versions of them. well think about it this way, how come most creatures on earth today have eyes that can be considered very similar to each other (lenses photosesitive cells)? they most likely have a similar ancestry, that being the organism that was able to evolve eyes faster than the other organisms, thus surviving while the others did not, later branching out into more specialized organisms based the the changing surroundings at the time