Macroevolution:

[Loudmouth]

true. so in this case below you will claim that they indeed evolved from a common descent?:

View attachment 207669

There are cars with solid booster rockets and cars with wings.

 

[driewerf]

1. Is just a theory.

Is the conclusion of a scientific theory. Not "just a theory", which introduces a judgement of value.

2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Is a scientific theory.

3. Is anathema to the Bible.

Is anathema to a literal reading of the Bible.

4. Cannot be observed.

Has produced observable effects.

5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.

Is solidly supported by evidence.

6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.

Who did doesn't matter. What matters is by what evidence it is supported. An as such it is very well supported.

7. Is a lie of the Devil.

Nope. It was simultanously formulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Neither of them being devilish.

8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.

Nope. It refers to the evolution of species and is as such only relevant to biology.

9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.

Looking around, it is defended by people like Richard Dawkins who are aggressive against all religion, people like me who are rather indifferent to religion, christians like Ken Liller, ordained ministers like Robert Bakker and even by recent converts like Francis Collins.

 

[stevil]

so if we will find a (old) fossil of a placental mammal in australia evolution will be false?

If Wikipedia is correct then Australia has had bats for a while, and also some rodents for a while
Mammals of Australia - Wikipedia

Australia has indigenous placental mammals from two orders: the bats, order Chiroptera, represented by six families, and the mice and rats, order Rodentia, family Muridae.
...
Bats probably arrived from Asia, and they are present in the fossil record only from as recently as 15 mya

Rodents first arrived in Australia 5 to 10 mya and underwent a wide radiation to produce the species collectively known as the "old endemics" rodents. The old endemics are represented by 14 extant genera. About a million years ago, the rat entered Australia from New Guinea and evolved into seven species of Rattus, collectively called the "new endemics".

My question to you is this?
If god created creatures fully formed, why does the fossil record show a migration and evolution pattern (of similar creatures having branched out over time) rather than a seemingly random pattern?
Why did the god create creatures in a way that would trick people studying fossils and dna into thinking there is an evolutionary path?
Do you deny that we pass on DNA to our offspring? Do you deny that sometimes there are "mistakes" in our passed on DNA? Do you deny that some of those mistakes lead to an offspring that is less fit for survival and procreation? Do you deny that some of those mistakes lead to an offspring that is more fit for survival and procreation? Which aspect of this is it that you have issues with?

 

[Kylie]

Then by all means, Kylie, employ this scientific method and answer his questions with better answers than I gave.

Need the questions again? here they are:

And here are my answers again:

Now ... let's see better answers, compliments of the scientific method ... instead of no answers, accompanied by ridicule of my answers.

The answer that the scientific method leads me to is this:

It's a fable and never actually happened.

To support this answer, I cite the lack of evidence where such evidence should presumably be, and I also cite the presence of an alternative explanation of the existence of the wide variety of life forms which answers all these questions without the need to invoke a magical being.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer that the scientific method leads me to is this:

It's a fable and never actually happened.

Then they are dumb questions?

If so, why did he ask them?

I personally thought they were good ones.

 

[xianghua]

I also gave an example of a mammal with a jellyfish gene with an identical sequence as that found in the jellyfish. When referring to genes, not features, you need to compare the sequence.

since homolgous trait base on homolous gene, this claim can be falsified too. an identical gene in both jellyfish and human will not falsified evolution.

 

[xianghua]

If Wikipedia is correct then Australia has had bats for a while, and also some rodents for a while

you said that if evolution is false then we should find an old placental mammal in australia. right? if so such a fossil will need to falsified evolution.

If god created creatures fully formed, why does the fossil record show a migration and evolution pattern (of similar creatures having branched out over time) rather than a seemingly random pattern?

can you give an example?

Do you deny that we pass on DNA to our offspring? Do you deny that sometimes there are "mistakes" in our passed on DNA? Do you deny that some of those mistakes lead to an offspring that is less fit for survival and procreation? Do you deny that some of those mistakes lead to an offspring that is more fit for survival and procreation? Which aspect of this is it that you have issues with?

non of them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

true. so in this case below you will claim that they indeed evolved from a common descent?:

View attachment 207669

No, because you ignored how I said cars differ from living organisms. Like I said, you can't stick wings on a bearded dragon and make a bird out of it, but you can change a car into an airplane. One of the rules of evolution is that individual organisms do not evolve; populations do. You can't have a transition like that within a single generation of living organisms. But, one can easily change a car's parts. This is another way by which cars and living things are not comparable. -_- also, there are more differences between cars and airplanes than just wings.

i refer to the types of eyes that indeed suppose to share a common eye.

-_- vertebrate eyes, I suppose is what you are trying to say, seeing as those would be most relevant to humans. There are plenty of different eye lineages to choose from, though. Why share so many eye flaws when other organisms don't have these flaws?

 

[driewerf]

• An example of "speciation".
• [The scene: a population of wild fruit flies minding its own business on several bunches of rotting bananas, cheerfully laying their eggs in the mushy fruit...
  
  
  
  
  
• Disaster strikes: A hurricane washes the bananas and the immature fruit flies they contain out to sea. The banana bunch eventually washes up on an island off the coast of the mainland. The fruit flies mature and emerge from their slimy nursery onto the lonely island. The two portions of the population, mainland and island, are now too far apart for gene flow to unite them. At this point, speciation has not occurred — any fruit flies that got back to the mainland could mate and produce healthy offspring with the mainland flies.
  
  
  
  
  
• The populations diverge: Ecological conditions are slightly different on the island, and the island population evolves under different selective pressures and experiences different random events than the mainland population does. Morphology, food preferences, and courtship displays change over the course of many generations of natural selection.
  
  
  
  
  
• So we meet again: When another storm reintroduces the island flies to the mainland, they will not readily mate with the mainland flies since they've evolved different courtship behaviors. The few that do mate with the mainland flies, produce inviable eggs because of other genetic differences between the two populations. The lineage has split now that genes cannot flow between the populations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Download the graphics on this page from the Image library.
  

This is a simplified model of speciation by geographic isolation, but it gives an idea of some of the processes that might be at work in speciation. In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence. However, the evidence that this sort of process does happen is strong.]

Guess what, they are still fruit flies, that have adapted to their environment. I love learning about evolution.

No, the island species will not be fruit flies, since the can't mate anymore with the fruit flies. Being able to mate and to have fertile offspring is one the features of a species.

 

[Loudmouth]

since homolgous trait base on homolous gene, this claim can be falsified too. an identical gene in both jellyfish and human will not falsified evolution.

I already said that it would falsify evolution. If ID/creationism is true, why wouldn't we find an identical gene with identical sequence in a single mammal species and in jellyfish, but not find that same sequence in any other mammal?

 

[driewerf]

Yep, and every time I looked they were still flies. I could not even find where one of them evolved into a chicken.

The flies or Diptera is an oder that contains 125.000 species. Evolution happens through speciation.

 

[Kylie]

Then they are dumb questions?

If so, why did he ask them?

I personally thought they were good ones.

He asked them because he does not understand the scientific account of how life evolved.

 

[xianghua]

No, because you ignored how I said cars differ from living organisms.

but i refer to a car with a living traits like self replication.

-_- vertebrate eyes, I suppose is what you are trying to say, seeing as those would be most relevant to humans. There are plenty of different eye lineages to choose from, though. Why share so many eye flaws when other organisms don't have these flaws?

who said it's a flaw?

 

[xianghua]

I already said that it would falsify evolution. If ID/creationism is true, why wouldn't we find an identical gene with identical sequence in a single mammal species and in jellyfish, but not find that same sequence in any other mammal?

no. you asked for homologous trait and i gave you one. if it's indeed a scientific theory- evolution should be false now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but i refer to a car with a living traits like self replication.

Which does not exist. Hypothetical items get you nowhere.

who said it's a flaw?

-_- vertebrate eyes are backwards, which is the reason why vertebrates have blind spots and other vision flaws. How would this not be considered a flaw when we see eyes in nature without this problem?

This is the type of mess your brain has to fix in order to see clearly.

 

[Loudmouth]

no. you asked for homologous trait and i gave you one. if it's indeed a scientific theory- evolution should be false now.

I asked for homologous genes that were identical in sequence.

 

[xianghua]

-_- vertebrate eyes are backwards, which is the reason why vertebrates have blind spots and other vision flaws. How would this not be considered a flaw when we see eyes in nature without this problem?

actually this trait improve vision:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."


Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian


"So there must be a good reason for the "backwards" structure, Ribak thought.And there is. It helps us see in color better"


so this suppose "flaw" isnt a flaw at all. as we can expect under the design model and not at all under the evolutionery one.

 

[xianghua]

I asked for homologous genes that were identical in sequence.

this isn't what you said here:

"If there were multiple such examples for homologous traits, this would falsify evolution"

so i gave you such a case.

 

[PsychoSarah]

actually this trait improve vision:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."

I can't even look at this article's sources, much less finish it, without paying, so you better provide a primary source.

However, eyesight varies significantly even among vertebrates.
Birds have the sharpest eyesight, able to see objects with the greatest clarity and at the greatest distances... so why not humans if they have the same designer?

What is the point of using any inferior eye designs? And why the heck do some animals that are always born blind even have eyes? My argument isn't defeated if humans have better vision than an octopus does, because if it all has the same designer, why isn't vision equal, at least among multicellular organisms?

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

"So there must be a good reason for the "backwards" structure, Ribak thought.And there is. It helps us see in color better"

This article I can read in full, but it has no primary sources cited. Are you allergic to reliable sources? It's not my job to look through the sources an article has to see if it is legitimate, that's on you, but I can't even do that for you.

XD also, I have more types of eyes to work with than the backwards vertebrate eyes or the frontwards eyes of squid. Consider mantis shrimp, the organisms with the most complex eyes and the best color vision.

Check it out, the retina is towards the back of the eye, but the optic nerve doesn't need a hole in it, thus is not the source of a blind spot. So, the blind spot in human eyes is demonstrably unnecessary, even if you think the position of the retina towards the back of the eye is. Mantis shrimp have 16 different types of cones for detecting color, while humans generally only have 3 (a percentage of human women have 4).

so this suppose "flaw" isnt a flaw at all. as we can expect under the design model and not at all under the evolutionery one.

-_- again, that would mean that the frontward retinas are the flawed design with no point to existing. Same designer means there should be the same, best eye design in every organism that needs to see. And there shouldn't be eyes wasted on organisms that don't even need to see, like bats.

 

[Kylie]

actually this trait improve vision:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."


Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian


"So there must be a good reason for the "backwards" structure, Ribak thought.And there is. It helps us see in color better"


so this suppose "flaw" isnt a flaw at all. as we can expect under the design model and not at all under the evolutionery one.

And that is explainable by evolution.