Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
evolution&dogs, book 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RedAndy" data-source="post: 34687287" data-attributes="member: 172547"><p>There is evidence for common descent. Lots of it. Have a <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">link</a>. No, have <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" target="_blank">two</a>.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>What is the evidence for this "Theory of Creation?" Certain fields like comparative genomics, etc., seem to point far more to the idea that fish, birds, mammals, molluscs, plants, prokaryotes etc. all had a common origin. Frankly I can see no compelling non-Biblical evidence pointing to a Creation event. The empirical evidence suggests common descent - have a look at the first of the links I gave (it's a lot of reading but I'm sure you'll find it interesting).</p><p> </p><p></p><p>How does your claim that the "progression" of the eye is not plausible reconcile with the fact that Darwin, in <em>The Origin of Species</em>, postulated a series of progressive steps in which the eye could evolve - and, furthermore, <em>every single one </em>of these different steps has been found to exist in nature. You cannot claim the false dichotomy that all sighted organisms have either "photosensitive cells" or a "fully formed" (by which I suppose you mean mammalian) eye when there are examples in nature of the very things you suppose do not exist. Some snails, for example, have an eye analogous to a pinhole camera.</p><p> </p><p>I, by the way, am short-sighted. I find it laughable that you suggest that since my eye is not completely perfect, I should simply resign myself to the fact that I might as well be blind. That, in essence, is what you are suggesting - anything less than perfect is impossible.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I thought I'd help you out by highlighting a little part of the definition. This definition does not claim to be the be-all and end-all of evolutionary processes. It doesn't mention lateral gene transfer, either, but we have good evidence that this has been a very significant process during the course of evolution, particularly in the early stages of single-celled life.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>You claimed that there was a difference between "adaptation" and "evolution," and you had defined "adaptation" in a way that most would consider to be evolution. My motive was to work out precisely what you meant when you referred to evolution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RedAndy, post: 34687287, member: 172547"] There is evidence for common descent. Lots of it. Have a [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]link[/URL]. No, have [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html"]two[/URL]. What is the evidence for this "Theory of Creation?" Certain fields like comparative genomics, etc., seem to point far more to the idea that fish, birds, mammals, molluscs, plants, prokaryotes etc. all had a common origin. Frankly I can see no compelling non-Biblical evidence pointing to a Creation event. The empirical evidence suggests common descent - have a look at the first of the links I gave (it's a lot of reading but I'm sure you'll find it interesting). How does your claim that the "progression" of the eye is not plausible reconcile with the fact that Darwin, in [I]The Origin of Species[/I], postulated a series of progressive steps in which the eye could evolve - and, furthermore, [I]every single one [/I]of these different steps has been found to exist in nature. You cannot claim the false dichotomy that all sighted organisms have either "photosensitive cells" or a "fully formed" (by which I suppose you mean mammalian) eye when there are examples in nature of the very things you suppose do not exist. Some snails, for example, have an eye analogous to a pinhole camera. I, by the way, am short-sighted. I find it laughable that you suggest that since my eye is not completely perfect, I should simply resign myself to the fact that I might as well be blind. That, in essence, is what you are suggesting - anything less than perfect is impossible. The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted. I thought I'd help you out by highlighting a little part of the definition. This definition does not claim to be the be-all and end-all of evolutionary processes. It doesn't mention lateral gene transfer, either, but we have good evidence that this has been a very significant process during the course of evolution, particularly in the early stages of single-celled life. You claimed that there was a difference between "adaptation" and "evolution," and you had defined "adaptation" in a way that most would consider to be evolution. My motive was to work out precisely what you meant when you referred to evolution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
evolution&dogs, book 2
Top
Bottom