proving evolution as just a "theory"

[DogmaHunter]

the same with the missing chromosomes "prediction".



so this motor isn't evidence for design:

Mini Kaze 60mm Quiet Fan

That fan bears signs of manufacturing and is 100% in line with human engineering practices and technology: plastics, copper wires, solding, bolts,...

None of those things occur naturally either.

The fan is NOT evidence of design. The fan, rather, bears evidence of manufacturing.

 

[sfs]

the same with the missing chromosomes "prediction".

The vestigial centromere and telomeres were not known when the fusion was proposed, so yes, they really were a prediction.

so this motor isn't evidence for design:

If you find one of those in a cell, we'll have something to talk about.

 

[Skreeper]

thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:

Bacterial Flagellum

so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.

No we don't because we know how the flagellum evolved. The problem is that you do not understand how humans recognize design.

Can you give us an example of an intelligent designer creating a flagellum from scratch?

 

[tas8831]

thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:

Bacterial Flagellum

Please show me a human-designed flagellum, as opposed to a human-designed diagram of one.

so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.

Non sequitur.

Highly stylized diagrams are not actual flagella.

If I 'define' parts of a star such that is 'resembles' a furnace, can I conclude that because humans make furnaces that stars are human contrivances, too?

humans also makes artificial proteins or genes (organic components). so again: the same conclusion.

Yes, using machinery of known human manufacture, using quite different techniques.

the evidence is the motor itself. and as you can see- we need to conclude design even by your own critieria.

Not even close.

Analogies are not evidence. Labeling biological structures such that they are analogous to human contrivances does not make them human contrivances.

In the end, this "it looks like something a human makes, therefore, design" line of argumentation is a loser for the creationist, for all you are really doing is claiming that humans made things that occur in nature, not some deity.

 

[sfs]

If I 'define' parts of a star such that is 'resembles' a furnace, can I conclude that because humans make furnaces that stars are human contrivances, too?

No, no. The correct conclusion is that stars are designed. Similarly, humans make artificial soil, and this implies that dirt is designed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i never said you said it. and if s everal traits can evolved by convergent evolution then a mammal traits can evolve twice.

NO. You have entirely missed what convergent evolution is. The structures LOOK the same, but physically are DISTINCT. An organism that is a mammal and an organism THAT LOOKS LIKE A MAMMAL could evolve independently, but since being a mammal is more than just outward appearance or similar niche, two separate mammalian lineages COULD NOT arise independently.

and therefore evolution can explain a 300my mammal fossil by convergent evolution too.

Nope, because you consistently seem to not understand that convergent evolution doesn't result in identical structures.

 

[tas8831]

No, no. The correct conclusion is that stars are designed. Similarly, humans make artificial soil, and this implies that dirt is designed.

Ah yes, I stand corrected.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes still an assumption. We assume that chimps and humans are related and that we came from a common ancestor. It's assumed that the commonality of the coding sequences mean we came from a common ancestor. It's still an assumption.

Can you think of any natural process by which humans and chimps (and other apes) could have acquired almost identical DNA (or coding sequences) without being descended from common ancestors?

 

[The Times]

Earlier you posted this: "Saved by science is your descriptor.

As a general comment not personally directed to you. I like to have a go at interpreting it like....

Saved by chance maybe in case of Evolution Theory?

It may also be saved by Chaos, if that makes sense at all!"

I told you I did not understand what you were trying to say. After two or three requests you finally came up with the lengthy post featured at the top of this one. It appears to be a rephrasing of your basic argument.

I was not asking for a rephrasing of your basic argument. I was asking what the short four line post above meant. Restating your basis argument does not achieve that end.

I have no idea why you introduce, apparently our of nowhere and with no apparent connection to your basic argument the statement "Saved by science is your descriptor."

I don't understand what that statement means. I can make some guesses and none of them appeare relevant to the discussion we are having in this thread.

The subsequent three lines do nothing to clarify your intent.

In general many people chose to remain confused, because their primary and secondary discourses over time have been deconstructed and reconstructed to empty them of any cognition that would allow them to see and understand. In this regard there are no words for those people that would make it easier for them to understand, because they live in an alternate reality. It is sad, but this phenomena is occurring like an endemic and people are not discerning it.

I call it......"Alternate State"

 

[The Times]

Conspiracy?

I think not.

The advocates of a 'Single Intelligencia' could do their camp a big favor and actually provide a real, legitimate, corroborated, verifiable bit of evidence that would compel skeptics to accept their version of reality, rather than hiding behind excess verbiage, unwarranted condescension, and bible verses.

What does all this mean friend. When I read it, it sounds like I am debating a very religious man, who is holding up to religious dogma like the Evolution Theory. Am I right?

 

[The Times]

Perfect example of dismissal. Intelligent design movement therefore it can be summarily dismissed. It's where evolution fails again. Anything that counters current thought is just waved away. This despite the fact that there is obvious problems with evolution that is pointed out. Evolutionists have a lock on the teaching and anything that counters the thought is waved off as not science. Despite the fact that evolution isn't real science either since it can't be observed tested or reproduced.

Evolution Theory is part of a non deity based religion, with pundits who dogmatically hold to its doctrines. The primary and secondary discourses of Evolutionists are hard wired to reject all logical reasoning and the multitude of evidence in plain sight. As a Christian it would be no different to debating a Mormon or JW with their religious dogma.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution Theory is part of a non deity based religion

No, it's part of the science of Biology. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's the science that deals with living things.

 

[The Times]

No, it's part of the science of Biology. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's the science that deals with living things.

The constructs of Evolution Theory which are accompanied by the definition of terms used are not scientific, rather are purely speculative.

For example, an Evolutionist will say look at this thing evolving. I reply really! is it evolving or is it a case of the same lifeform adapting within its environment, based on food, weather and threats.

Evolving does not mean adapting. These terms are so slackly used in the Evolution vocabulary that they seldomly use the term adaptation, rather in its place they replace it by the term evolving, so that it can gives credence to the Evolutionist dogma.

Evolving according to the Evolutionist inception of life itself, means the transitioning from one totally different lifeform to another. At times their religious dogma even goes as far as to say a non intelligent and non living matter like a mineralised rock to a whale for example.

In fact their defintion is so ambiguous that it does not stand up to scrutiny, even by using it to real life examples.

Let us take the butterfly, how it starts off as and to where it ends, as a beautiful butterfly. By rights, we should call this process Evolution, but is it? What do the Evolutionist call it?

The Evolutionist do not call this Evolution, that is the worm evolving, through a process. In fact they never speak of it, because it clearly shows that there is no Evolution, but a process that is by design of an intelligent agency made like that in the process. Sure the butterfly can adapt into different forms, but will stay within its species as a butterfly. Non life did not begat life, nor did one different lifeform begat another.

The tapestry of life is so closely interconnected like the engineering equations, that there are baseline algorithms that rule out chaotic process, leading to the chancing of life emerging. It cannot be rationally conceived that all these connection happening through a single path, that is rock, whale and so forth as Evolutionists dogmatically hold to.

In fact we observe in nature that species sprung up simultaneously and all species stayed within their gene pool and never cross lapped. There was no half zebra half lion, or half fish half man. Rather the processes occurred simultaneously and exhibited adaptation over time.

 

[pitabread]

Let us take the butterfly, how it starts off as and to where it ends, as a beautiful butterfly. By rights, we should call this process Evolution, but is it? What do the Evolutionist call it?

If you're talking about the process of going from a caterpillar to a butterfly, there is a term for that. It's called Metamorphosis - Wikipedia.

In fact we observe in nature that species sprung up simultaneously and all species stayed within their gene pool and never cross lapped. There was no half zebra half lion, or half fish half man. Rather the processes occurred simultaneousky and exhibited adaptation over time.

There is no such thing as a "half zebra half lion" or "half fish half man" because that's not how biological evolution works. There certainly are transitional examples out there, but given that the gap separating humans and fish evolution is 500 million years or so, finding a half-and-half would be a more an indication of a freakish genetic experiment than natural evolution.

I'd suggest taking some time to learn more about biological evolution and maybe biology in general, if you intend to keep discussing it on forums. Here is a good site to start learning some basics: Welcome to Evolution 101!

The tapestry of life is so closely interconnected like the engineering equation, that there are baseline algorithms that rule out chaotic process, leading to the chancing of life emerging. It cannot be rationally conceived that all these connection happening through a single path, that is rock, whale and so forth as Evolutionists dogmatically hold to.

If there are people that believe there is some sort of intelligent, creative force that shaped the universe, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution stands on its own as a foundational part of modern biology.

 

[The Times]

If you're talking about the process of going from a caterpillar to a butterfly, there is a term for that. It's called Metamorphosis - Wikipedia.

By rights if the butterfly was extinct 1000s of years ago and Evolutionists came across its fossil remains, then they would no doubt call it Evolution, in the same way they show the Evolution of humans over time, by highliting their protruding brow line.

This is the quasi religion of Evolution and its fallacy.

In fact, the Bible informs us that humans lived for several hundred of years and the protruding brow line would be expected as an aging process that is observed amongst our seniors.

There is no such thing as a "half zebra half lion" or "half fish half man" because that's not how biological evolution works. There certainly are transitional examples out there, but given that the gap separating humans and fish evolution is 500 million years or so, finding a half-and-half would be a more an indication of a freakish genetic experiment than natural evolution.

Why not! If life was finding a way, then there must be lots of misses or mutations like Chimeras or

I'd suggest taking some time to learn more about biological evolution and maybe biology in general, if you intend to keep discussing it on forums. Here is a good site to start learning some basics: Welcome to Evolution 101!

Thanks, but I have already learnt much of this at school and I find it an Evolution bashing at its best.

If there are people that believe there is some sort of intelligent, creative force that shaped the universe, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution stands on its own as a foundational part of modern biology.

Sure. I have provided interconnected embedded algorthimic patterns existing across time and throughout all matter, whether it be the DNA, the Aromic arrangements or the chemical molecular configuration and all use Fibonnaci or a baseline connected algorithm. Just like engineering equations, you can use one equation to yield another is what is evidence that there is a single algorithmic path and a single intellegencia. In fact if we had millions of years of misses we should see failed life forms and different pathways taken. We don't and so the onus falls back on the Evolutionists to show where these failed pathways exist scientifically, and I mean quantiitvely and qualatively.

 

[Speedwell]

In fact if we had millions of years of misses we should see failed life forms and different pathways taken. We don't and so the onus falls back on the Evolutionists to show where these failed pathways exist scientifically, and I mean quantiitvely and qualatively.

In fact, that is what we do see. There are countless extinct--failed--species. There is a wide diversity of life, many different pathways taken leading to ithat diversity.

 

[The Times]

In fact, that is what we do see. There are countless extinct--failed--species. There is a wide diversity of life, many different pathways taken leading to ithat diversity.

Not extinct species, rather exitinct adaptation of the same kind, therefore same species. This is where Evolutionists use the term evolution in place of adaptation. It is a failed adaptation, therefore no evidence for evolution.

I'm sorry, but you have just proven the point I made earlier. Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

Not extinct species, rather exitinct adaptation of the same kind, therefore same species. This is where Evolutionists use the term evolution in place of adaptation. It is a failed adaptation, therefore no evidence for evolution.

I'm sorry, but you have just proven the point I made earlier. Thanks.

Not extinct species? Don't you believe in species?

As to "kinds," There is no biological or genetic evidence that they exist as a barrier to "adaptation" as you call it. Moreover, there is no scriptural evidence whatever that by "kinds" the author of Genesis 1 meant to describe any such immutable divine taxonomy.

 

[The Times]

Not extinct species? Don't you believe in species?

As to "kinds," There is no biological or genetic evidence that they exist as a barrier to "adaptation" as you call it. Moreover, there is no scriptural evidence whatever that by "kinds" the author of Genesis 1 meant to describe any such immutable divine taxonomy.

Within species it is adaptation, not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Within species it is adaptation, not evolution.

So speciation is "evolution" then? No problem; speciation has been abserved both in the lab and in the field.