Evolution happens

[Buzzard3]

No, it isn't, as I've repeatedly pointed out now. Testing under the scientific method is done for falsifiable predictions. You're making a strawman version of the scientific method.

Sounds like a convenient cop-out.


How do you falsify the theory that the evolution of the eye is the result of mutations and selecion?

 

[Buzzard3]

No, it isn't, as I've repeatedly pointed out now. Testing under the scientific method is done for falsifiable predictions. You're making a strawman version of the scientific method.

Which theory predicts that mutations and selection will produce an eye?

 

[stevil]

Which theory predicts that mutations and selection will produce an eye?

Is an eye advantageous for survival and procreation?

 

[SelfSim]

... "It's not that hard"? Hilarious. The fact of the matter is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to demonsrtate that eyes evolved through natural selection via genes. Believing what you want to believe is a long way from the scientific method.

Who cares? Your 'point' is completely irrelevant:
Evolution of the Eye:

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations. Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson's model "evolves" until a clear image is produced. Examples of organisms that still use the intermediary forms of vision are also shown.

Its a testable hypothesis which is already well-supported with hard evidence from existing species:

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Genes were evolving alongside eyes too, y'know ..

You seemed to have missed my point. If the cell wall did not suddenly appear 100% complete, of what use to the organism is only part of a cell wall?

Who cares?
Your 'point' is completely irrelevant.

 

[ottawak]

Neither Dr. Gunter Bechly, nor anyone else at evolutionnews.org, ever mentions "kinds" or makes any reference to Biblical texts. And they certainly don't make any argument based on "kinds", bcoz they don't interpret Genesis literally.

As for "special creations" and
"specified complexity", I'm not sure.

So if you're not a biblical creationist, what's your beef with the theory of evolution?

 

[Yttrium]

Sounds like a convenient cop-out.

How do you falsify the theory that the evolution of the eye is the result of mutations and selecion?

Oh, it's simple. Find a rabbit in the Precambrian.

Or something like that.

Or find a genetic mechanism that prevents genetic change past a certain point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, it's simple. Find a rabbit in the Precambrian.

Um ... no.

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, though if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

SOURCE

All that would do is bring scientists to the table to discuss a course of action to keep evolution believable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neither Dr. Gunter Bechly, nor anyone else at evolutionnews.org, ever mentions "kinds" or makes any reference to Biblical texts. And they certainly don't make any argument based on "kinds", bcoz they don't interpret Genesis literally.

As for "special creations" and
"specified complexity", I'm not sure.

Again, THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED.

I was asking about his SCIENTIFIC publications. Not what he writes on a creationist site.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, you would know, having built many a star yourself.

Get the code and make a star your self:

Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics — MESA r21.12.1 documentation

Do you seriously claim that stars can't possibly form naturally because science hasn't made a working fusion reactor? (Or is that some sort of joke you were telling?)

 

[Yttrium]

Um ... no.

SOURCE

All that would do is bring scientists to the table to discuss a course of action to keep evolution believable.

Okay, so it wouldn't necessarily break all of it, just parts of it.

But it would be really hard to recover from that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You must be joking. Western civilization, for starters, is dominated by cultural Marxism - the secular religion of Equality.

Feminism (including the vote for women),

gay rights and same-sex "marriage",

Cultural "Marxism" isn't Marxism. It's just an attempt to lump in somethings people don't like (see above) with something else they don't like (Marxism).

the Civil Rights movement (in America),

the virtual worship of negroid race, (rampant in the English-speaking world, including Australia),

We're done. I'll have no more of you and your race hate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, you would know, having built many a star yourself.

Is that your way of saying you know nothing about what stars are made of or how they form? If you want to know how we know that, just ask.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientists find new colony structure of fire ants evolved in one species before spreading to others:
Large piece of chromosome was transferred:Evolutionary explanation - competitive advantage overrides incompatiaiblities:

Cool! It's as if they've rediscovered the gene transfer mechanisms used by bacteria.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seemed to have missed my point. If the cell wall did not suddenly appear 100% complete, of what use to the organism is only part of a cell wall?
How does only part of a cell wall confer a survival advantage?
And what empirical evidence is there that only part of a cell wall confers a survival advantage?

Cell walls are based on lipid molecules, which self-assemble in water into hollow balls called lipid vesicles. So the earliest cell walls did suddenly appear 100% complete.

These vesicles have been shown to be able to increase in size until they split into smaller vesicles, which would provide early proto-cells with a primitive form of reproduction - the contents of the original vesicle would be divided up between the daughter vesicles.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

... especially so if one wilfully ignores any contrary evidence.

Why is that many card-carrying evolutionary scientists state that ToE is inadequate as an explanation for the fossil record?

Translation: "We think we have evidence that eyes evolved. Some of us choose to believe that that perceived evidence is enough to declare it a fact that eyes evolved ... simply because that's what we want to believe."

"It's not that hard"? Hilarious. The fact of the matter is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to demonsrtate that eyes evolved through natural selection via genes. Believing what you want to believe is a long way from the scientific method.

You seemed to have missed my point. If the cell wall did not suddenly appear 100% complete, of what use to the organism is only part of a cell wall?
How does only part of a cell wall confer a survival advantage?
And what empirical evidence is there that only part of a cell wall confers a survival advantage?

Your entire argument is based on personal incredulity. You cannot imagine evolution occurring as scientists say it does, then evolution must be false.

You clearly know nothing about what you're arguing against or you would actually make an attempt to learn instead of just sticking your head in the sand and going "NOPE!" when given explanations.

 

[Shemjaza]

You must be joking. Western civilization, for starters, is dominated by cultural Marxism - the secular religion of Equality.

Feminism (including the vote for women),

gay rights and same-sex "marriage",

the Civil Rights movement (in America),

the virtual worship of negroid race, (rampant in the English-speaking world, including Australia),

politically-correct laguage,

affirmative action,

the obsession with "diversity"

... these are all manifestations of Marxism.

Such as?

Just to clarify your point... you support the removal of all those things?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Cultural "Marxism" isn't Marxism. It's just an attempt to lump in somethings people don't like (see above) with something else they don't like (Marxism).

It's what I call argumentum ad label'em. "If I give it a label that people don't like, I win."

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so it wouldn't necessarily break all of it, just parts of it.

But it would be really hard to recover from that.

Then I'll go ahead and take this:

Oh, it's simple. Find a rabbit in the Precambrian.

... with a grain of salt.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's what I call argumentum ad label'em. "If I give it a label that people don't like, I win."

Like "fetus"?

 

[ottawak]

Then I'll go ahead and take this: ... with a grain of salt.

You certainly can't expect that finding a rabbit in the precambrian would cause people to become biblical creationists. That ship has allready sailed.