Posted by njili on November 24, 1998 at 11:36:13:
In Reply to: MY FINDINGS posted by Pohl on November 22, 1998 at 21:37:24:
First off, would I believe in evolution if I'd been brought up in a religious family in Iran? Probably not, since I'm rather average and those who do believe in evolution under those given circumstances are definitely in the minority. However, I have a little door in my mind which I can open or close at will (difficult sometimes but always openable). If there's someone (something) I don't like, I can really dislike him and generate lots of reasons why, or I can 'open' that little door and weigh the actual evidence. I don't always (usually ??) do that because I dont want to like this person. I think religious people don't want to open this door insofar as their beliefs are concerned .. and that's their prerogative. There are undoubtedly evolutionists who wont open their door to the ideas of creationists. It works both ways.
As to the fish who looked like seaweed surviving because they were camouflaged from their predators. It all seems quite straightforward. The point isn't trying to explain why there are fish instead of 'no fish' nor why there are fish instead of 'all fish', it's to explain why we have 'those' fish which we now have. If some had looked less like seaweed, they'd have died out (as many species certainly did) and we'd either have some other species in their place or there'd be nothing in their place .. or perhaps a larger number of a present species. Some sort of equilibrium will prevail .. it's nature's way. Even with men overfishing, an equilibrium will prevail (although that equilibrium might well be 'no fish' if we keep going on as we do).
Once again, a disclaimer.... this is just MY opinion and anyone with evidence which contradicts my beliefs can post it and I might open my little door and let the new info in, or I might decide to continue believing/thinking as I do. (As though what I believed mattered to anyone but myself - - double chuckle).
As to your question as to brain size. I think it depends on the species size (not the individual size) and the measurement should be given as a percentage of body weight. The aye aye with a much smaller brain than the rhinocerous is certainly 'smarter'. And anyone who has ever seen a cow's brain and also had the opportunity to see the animal in action will realize that though it's brain is several times larger than a fox's, it's not the smarter of the two. It doesn't mean that the 150 lbs man with the 3 lb brain is smarter than the 300 lbs man with the same sized brain .. (species not individuals). (insert disclaimer here).
As you found in researching for your post. You can find data (experts and evidence) to back totally opposing conclusions. I choose to accept those conclusions which make me feel most comfortable.
I'd personally like to believe in a God (providing he was benevolent) and yet I see all the evidence as pointing towards evolution. Wouldn't it be nice if we found that there was a God and he simply chose evolution as his method of creating all this flora and fauna? Although I "KNOW" the bible is wrong (it contradicts itself), that in itself doesn't disprove God. It just disproves the God of the bible. However, with absolutely no evidence of a God, I'm sitting in the atheists' pew.
P.S. I really liked your post. (disclaimer here).