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.
Sounds like a convenient cop-out.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?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.
Who cares? Your 'point' is completely irrelevant:... "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.
Its a testable hypothesis which is already well-supported with hard evidence from existing species: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.
Genes were evolving alongside eyes too, y'know ..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.
Who cares?Buzzard3 said: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?
So if you're not a biblical creationist, what's your beef with the theory of evolution?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.
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?
Um ... no.Oh, it's simple. Find a rabbit in the Precambrian.
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.
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.
Well, you would know, having built many a star yourself.
Um ... no.
SOURCE
All that would do is bring scientists to the table to discuss a course of action to keep evolution believable.
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),
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.Well, you would know, having built many a star yourself.
Cool! It's as if they've rediscovered the gene transfer mechanisms used by bacteria.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:
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.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?
... 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?
Just to clarify your point... you support the removal of all those things?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?
It's what I call argumentum ad label'em. "If I give it a label that people don't like, I win."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).
Then I'll go ahead and take this:Okay, so it wouldn't necessarily break all of it, just parts of it.
But it would be really hard to recover from that.
... with a grain of salt.Oh, it's simple. Find a rabbit in the Precambrian.
Like "fetus"?It's what I call argumentum ad label'em. "If I give it a label that people don't like, I win."
You certainly can't expect that finding a rabbit in the precambrian would cause people to become biblical creationists. That ship has allready sailed.Then I'll go ahead and take this: ... with a grain of salt.
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?