Crowns&Laurels
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 2,769
- 751
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Maybe to an extent. It doesn't actually take away the fact that IC is an issue.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I just showed you a step-wise evolutionary pathway that evolution used to produce the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear. Evolution can produce IC systems.
Maybe to an extent. It doesn't actually take away the fact that IC is an issue.
Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-You got a citation for that?
Creationists would and do give a completely different analysis of this story, so it just goes to show that the conclusions you come to are much dependent on whether you believe in a common creator or common descent. Here's an example of what creation scientists have concluded:-Fossils literally sit in stone. If you think hundreds of thousands of geologists have had it all wrong for 200 years now, then I think you are going to need more than some vague assertions.
You claimed that we find modern organisms right at the beginning of the fossil record. Can you show us a single modern mammal in the Pre-Cambrian?
The evolution of the mammalian middle ear shows just that. If you remove any of the 3 middle ear bones the structure stops working.
Since evolution proposes that mammals evolved from reptiles, and reptiles only have on middle ear bone, then perhaps we can find fossils that give the step-wise evolution of the IC mammalian middle ear. Guess what? That's exactly what we find. In a series of fossils we can see two of the reptilian lower jaw bones evolve into functional parts of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
The most frustrating thing about discussing things with creationists is that they think empty assertions count as evidence.
Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-
Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-
Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.
But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.
But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1
Reference
http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang#star
- Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.
IC is a massive problem for evolution, probably as big a problem as the beginning of life from non-living chemicals or the origin of the universe from nothing, but you'll never get the supporters of that story to admit it.
Of course not, I'm not a scientist. But you could probably track it down if you are really that skeptical and have the time to do so.Do you have the original paper written by the scientists who did the work?
Creationists would and do give a completely different analysis of this story,
"Liaoconodon seems to have a distinct middle ear bone articulation, though it is three-bone (malleus-incus-stapes), and thus still distinctly mammalian. It could be a paedomorphic trait, and as such is a loss in information from the DMME condition.
However, it could also be a completely new functional morphology, though still distinctly mammalian.
Evolution can only be seen in this ‘transitional form’ if one presupposes evolution in the first place.
The crucial transformation required to decouple the extra middle ear bones in mammals from the reptilian jaw joint is still not evidenced in the fossils.
This study also fails to appreciate why ontogeny is not a good guide for understanding phylogeny. Just because an embryo goes through a stage that looks like the adult condition of a presumed ‘ancestral’ trait, it does not mean that the embryonic trait was ever, in any way, functional in the genealogy of the organism with the ‘derived’ trait.
And the fossil is dated far too late in the evolutionary scheme to work as a chronological intermediate.
Therefore, there is no reason to postulate evolution to explain this curious fossil. Rather, it makes better sense to envisage a single designer modifying the same basic developmental plan for his individual creatures, as the Bible declares."
Of course not, I'm not a scientist.
But you could probably track it down if you are really that skeptical and have the time to do so.
Maybe in formal scientific circles, but this is a Christian forum to discuss how God's created universe best fits with the world we see around us. If science seems to be in conflict with what we read in scripture then we need to question the validity of the conclusions being drawn from the scientific literature to see if there is a better explanantion that fits in with what God has told us. This, I believe, is what the creation scientists are doing, since they understand the finer details much better than the general public. You won't of course agree with that because you are obviously anti anything that involves supernatural forces and are therefore restricted to trying to explain everything from naturalistic causes, no matter how far-fetched such explanations seem to many people. I've heard it said that evolution has a lot to say about everything but in the end, explains nothing about anything. Seems a fair conclusion to me.It is common practice to cite the primary literature when discussing science. It isn't up to the skeptics to support your argument.
Well here's three to start you on the road to discovery:-
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity
I've watched a video on the complexity of the human eye and I have to say that to suggest that it could have come about by random, chance processes takes a hell of a lot more faith than I have.
It's so obvious (or ought to be) that it was designed by an incredibly intelligent being that no wonder the Bible says:-
"Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fool"
Maybe in formal scientific circles,
but this is a Christian forum to discuss how God's created universe best fits with the world we see around us.
If science seems to be in conflict with what we read in scripture then we need to question the validity of the conclusions being drawn from the scientific literature to see if there is a better explanantion that fits in with what God has told us.
You won't of course agree with that because you are obviously anti anything that involves supernatural forces and are therefore restricted to trying to explain everything from naturalistic causes, no matter how far-fetched such explanations seem to many people. I've heard it said that evolution has a lot to say about everything but in the end, explains nothing about anything. Seems a fair conclusion to me.
IC is a massive problem for evolution, probably as big a problem as the beginning of life from non-living chemicals or the origin of the universe from nothing, but you'll never get the supporters of that story to admit it.
Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-
http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang#star
I've watched a video on the complexity of the human eye and I have to say that to suggest that it could have come about by random, chance processes takes a hell of a lot more faith than I have.
No. It is not.The point you're not getting is that evolution altogether is built on the presupposition that abiogenesis occurred in the first place.
You know, this may sound mildly snobby, but when I sourced my claim, I referred to NASA, a university lecture, and a mainstream pop science resource. I think that trumps a site whose credibility literally could not be lower if it claimed that the earth was flat! I do not have access to the New Scientist article CMI is citing. However, given that various reliable university and scientific sources have offered me information on star formation which runs directly contrary to their claims, I would say that I have absolutely no reason to take them seriously. Then again, I fundamentally have no reason to take anything they say seriously at all until they remove the 15-year-old nonsense about the lost squadron.
So let me get this straight - mutations are not random, so they must be guided then and if so, by whom or what? What about chance, which antonym are you going to apply to that word as there are many possibilities?The fact that you would refer to evolution as a random, chance process shows a foundational lack of understanding about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?