Search results

Who? Me?!? No, that wasn't the reason at all. The reason is simply that that's where the evidence used to point. As new evidence came in, the explanations changed to closer match reality. ... BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!! That's hilarious. So, your argument is, science was...

How about the mutations to the citT genes in the E. coli long-term evolution experiment which allowed E. coli bacteria to be able to metabolize citrate in an anaerobic environment? This improved the bacteria which had this mutation by giving them another food source, allowing them to be more...

No, they didn't find "exceptions" to the logical progression of the fossil record, all they found is evidence that changes the time table a little bit.

You don't show evolution in a single creature, but across a number of related species over a period of time. So, if you mean, "Do we have fossils that show the evolution of the forelimb into the modern wing?" then the answer is yes:

Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? They arose due to evolution (a change in the frequency of traits in a population). Evolution is not merely speciation. If you don't believe the evidence in front of you, then I don't know what else to tell you. It's not a contradiction because...

You do realize that you're shooting your own argument that about "mutation theory" in the foot, right? Mutations exist. We can detect them objectively. Thus their existence is data. There are theories which explain why mutations occur, what forms they may take, and what they might cause, but...

LOL. Do you realize that you're arguing, "All of the fossils which we've grouped together based on extreme similarity happen to be extremely similar"? And somehow you think this disproves evolution? Not only is it silly, but it's wrong. If you want to look for evolution of a species, you...

You're not listening to what I'm saying. "Human" or "spider" isn't a switch that gets turned on in the genes. It's a human-invented distinction to describe a group. A group of organisms which were similar to modern humans gave birth to many offspring, some of which were closer to modern...

No, I'm saying that an object which is organic is, by definition, not a robot. The process of how it was created is irrelevant. Your argument is dependent upon using a word in a way contrary to what is normally meant by it, thus your argument itself is faulty. I honestly don't know how to...

If anything is an example of ignorance, it would be your assumption that evidence for evolution does not exist. You do understand that just because you haven't seen something which you would categorize as evidence, that that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, right? I've seen first hand that...

Yes, I see the problem. The problem is with your argument. First of all, if it's identical to a robot, then it's a robot, thus couldn't have evolved naturally, because robots don't do that. Second of all, your fanciful, naturally-occurring, identical-to-a-robot-but-somehow-not-a-robot doesn't...

You keep talking as if "organic components" are the same as it being a living organism capable of self-reproduction with a mechanism of heredity. Those are two very different things. So no, a watch made of wood would still be a watch. On the other hand, an organism may have watch-like traits...

Nope, totally didn't ignore that part. He asked about robots in the part I was replying to there. The penguins stuff only came up later, and when it did, I dealt with it. Yes, that indeed is a good description of what you just did. Of course not. It makes you a cyborg. ;) None of which...

So can a dragon evolve the ability to shoot X-rays instead of fire breath or not? It seems that you don't have a clear answer. :rolleyes: The problem doesn't lie within the person you're questioning, the problem lies within your question.

Well, there are nonscientific theories which tried to explain the facts of biology, such as Lysenkoism and Lamarckism. They were falsifiable scientific hypotheses, at least, but utterly failed as science because the evidence did not support them. Does that count?

This isn't an answer to my question, so I guess your answer is no, you don't care to actually answer the question. Great. Thanks. :p (snipping out irrelevant and off-topic claims) Well, as I pointed out earlier, you're in the minority among Christians worldwide in that belief. I showed...

Gee, you ever think that if evolutionists always tell you the same thing, that maybe you're just wrong about what they're claiming? A species isn't "one thing", it's a category which describes a group of organisms. What you're describing sounds more like alchemy than evolution, and that's the...

This is like looking at this picture: and then saying that you don't see any evidence that this car wasn't created wrapped around that pole. Or evidence that those skid marks weren't created by other processes. Or evidence that the airbag wasn't created in the exploded state. It requires...

But why is it the "only logical conclusion" within the creation model? Within the common creationist model anything is possible, since God poofed it all into existence as-is. There would be no need to make it appear that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two other chromosomes (unless you...

Sort of. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, and an established theory, such as the theory of evolution or the theory of universal gravitation, are ones that have withstood rigorous...