So, I'm going to try to understand your perspective on the process of evolution. Then I have to go. Evolution can explain the existence of all the diversity that exists on this planet. We can list a series of steps that could possibly have led to the creation of that particular species' characteristics, and then even though there is no proof of this, we must accept it as fact. Then, when someone uses our own terminology to question why the beetle's depressions were not eliminated by the evolutionary process, we say, oh, it was okay to keep those because they were beneficial (even though we don't know why they were beneficial) and then later, we say OH, evolution takes care of the perceived problem with probability by weeding out the nonviable mutations. The depressions in the beetle are nonviable unless it is leading to chambers that will hold chemicals that can't mix. Are you going to tell me that evolution somehow "knew" these depressions would be viable down the line, so it hung onto the depressions? And then there were the chambers that would eventually hold the chemicals. Why do we need chambers if there are not dangerous chemicals. They are "nonviable" unless evolution "knew" that they would be needed later. Is anyone else having a problem with evolution "knowing" something besides me?
As I said, I've gotta go. I'll check out your responses later.
. I'm saying that, as someone who does believe in God, I have never seen evolution as a challenge to my religious beliefs, just an explanation for how it happened. I don't understand the need to tear down the theory.
