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.
No, I will not be able to reach any conclusion about the existence of a designer. Your problem is the same as our colleague Dmmsdale is having. You want to eliminate the possibility of functional complexity arising by naturalistic processes a priori and you can't do it.
If I found a self-replicating organism on a distant planet which somehow indicated the time I might not be able to tell whether it was designed or the result of natural processes. Period.
No deal. You cannot simply say the earth may be billions of years old, and that all life began 6000 years ago and call that science. The issue is that life is very old. And if you arrange the fossils according to the measured age of the fossils, we see a clear progression of life. Early Precambrian life began about 4 billion years ago and was always single celled. Later, multi-celled life appeared, and by the Cambrian period (starting at 540 million years ago) many simple multi-celled life forms appeared. These forms changed as the years went on, finally resulting in vertebrates walking on the land about 380 million years ago. Fossils continued to progress into reptiles and mammal-like reptiles and then, 80 million years ago, into placental mammals. Only as we get to the most recent layers do we find modern mammal species. All of that is totally consistent with evolution. None of that is consistent with life being created 6000 years ago. If you want to propose some idea between the two that you think is compatible with the fossil record, bring it on. But you refuse to state what you believe, and refuse to say whether life progressed as indicated in the fossil record.
You did no such thing. The fossil record is totally incompatible with young earth creationism. Progressive creationism consisting of millions of creations over billions of years can be made compatible with the fossil record, but that fails on other grounds. You apparently try to sneak young earth creation in the backdoor. You have not given the slightest evidence for your apparent young earth creationism that apparently has life created perhaps 6000 years ago, but you refuse to tell us when you think it happened.
You have shown no fossils in the wrong order. You have shown that some descendents of some species might still exist after a new species has come around, but this is not the wrong order.
Sorry, we are talking about fossil bearing layers. The earth was never plasma, and it certainly was not plasma when there were animals on earth. Try again.
Are genes related to brain development different between humans and chimps, yes or no? When that answer is yes, that means that there are genetic variants that can result in higher levels of intelligence by default. The variation in species, and the subtle to extreme differences they afford, make every living thing on this planet inherently contradict your claim that no mutation or group of mutations could have a significant beneficial impact on intelligence. We can literally quantify many of the genetic differences between humans and other species that makes us more intelligent than they are. Heck, what do you make of a genus born to parents with average intelligence, hmm? The variation within our own species in terms of intelligence defeats your claim that mutations can never benefit intelligence. We just give more attention to the mutations that do bad than those that do good. What about the mutation in an extended family in Italy that makes them practically immune to cholesterol build up and heart disease? A member of that family in her 70s had the arteries of someone in their 20s. Is that not beneficial to you?
-_- what do you think would have caused the amino acid substitution to run in families aside from genetic mutation? It can't just be environment, because not everyone with this trait lives similarly.
Definitions of metaphysics:
A bigger, better brain could be the result of just one mutation, you know. The genes for human brain development and for, say, the brain development of a mouse, are almost exactly the same. Much more similar between humans and other apes. And other apes aren't stupid, if you speak sign language, you can have conversations with them, they're about as smart as 4-8 year old human children. Structurally, the brain of a chimp is almost exactly like a smaller version of a human brain. It doesn't take many mutations to change the size of an organ. Consider this scenario: what if the norm in the past was a genotype that would be associated with mental defect in our species today, and what was a rare mutation in the past is what the modern common genotype is derived from?
Doesn't need to be many for evolution to act upon.
Shockingly, a lot of the genes associated with brain function are not highly conserved, mostly just the genes that direct the brain to form at all, and where it should go. Why do you think mental disorders are so common in our species? Almost 20% of humanity is mentally defective in one way or another. Here's the thing: as long as it doesn't stop you from reproducing, it can be passed on to the next generation anyways. Also, you say "de novo" as if we don't experience genetic mutations all the time. Every person is born with between 40-60 de novo genes, so why are you acting like 60 is a problem? That's not very many mutations.
-_- mutations are mistakes that life has to deal with. Occassionally, those mistakes result in something good, like how sticky notes and silly putty and puffed chips are the results of errors. Most errors don't result in anything good, that's fine and dandy, the fact that any do gives natural selection something to act on.
That is because you are not looking. Creationists before Darwin knew there was a progression in the layers before Darwin, and that life got to be more like modern life as time progressed.
No, that is not what the evidence says. The scientists who wrote that study only say that is what they believe. They do not say they know this to be true. The fact that some scientists believe they will not find DNA older than 17,000 years does not prove it is true.
Excuse me, but I gave you three possible explanations and you ignored all three. Why should I repeat it over and over to you?
My point is that Hyracotherium lived before Mesohippus which lived before zebras. My point is that most likely zebras evolved from Hyracatherium or close relatives to the Hyracatherium.
This has been explained to you before, and you simply ignored our responses. If we explained it again, you would ignore us again, yes?
Bravo, I had to read that three times before I got the message. This certainly Is a thread to protect against certain waxes and protect proteinthreads in the brain that have been used less often.
You are merely assuming the case in point. How do you know that various Therapsids did not evolve from each other?
Uh, no, I never said it would be impossible for a fossil to be in the wrong place. Find a human in the Cambrian, and that upsets the whole geologic column. But your job is to find something like that, not merely argue about what happens if we find such a fossil.
The first cause of life has no basis in reality? Is that really your argument in a topic related to the ongoing controversy between evolution and creation? Science isn't allowed to make an inference with regards to a miracle but that doesn't mean there is no such thing in reality, especially with regards to the origin of life.
Except that we do.
Depends on if the watch can reproduce or has any traits of a living thing, or if there are any natural processes which could produce the watch. If the answer to both is no, then I conclude that the watch MUST be designed by something. Note that by having traits of living organisms, you render your "self-replicating watch" as covered by the theory of evolution, assuming that it's biology is analogous to organisms on our own planet.
