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.
Your interpretation of evidence works like this:It's not crackpot when we have evidence. LOTS of evidence.
Your interpretation of evidence works like this:
I buy two cans of Lincoln logs.
Can A was made from Silver Maple trees.
Can B was made from Crimson King Maple trees.
I then make an ape from Can A and a man from Can B.
Someone looks at these two and concludes common ancestry over common design.
Your interpretation of evidence works like this:
I buy two cans of Lincoln logs.
Can A was made from Silver Maple trees.
Can B was made from Crimson King Maple trees.
I then make an ape from Can A and a man from Can B.
Someone looks at these two and concludes common ancestry over common design.
Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!
I like the way you worded that.Um, we can observe fossils and genetic similarities between various species.
... did it?Um, we can see fossils and genetic similarities among diverse species.
Um, we can observe fossils and genetic similarities between various species. We can observe vestigial organs and "micro"-evolution in bacteria and pets. What exactly is your criteria of "observe"? That we have to literally see prehistoric tiny mammals evolve into homo sapiens over hundreds of millions of years? Do you not believe that Juilius Caesar existed because you never saw him around?
Evolution by natural selection is the most parsimonious theory that effectively explains the fossil record, genetic similarities, etc. in our collection of evidence. It has an extremely successful track record in making predictions and has been agreed with various other scientific fields. How is it not science?
As if you guys sit and watch them demonstrate macroevolution for you.
You sit and say "we can observe stars going nova," do you?LOL we don't sit and watch stars go supernova for us but we can still conclude that the stars going nova are those in later stages than those still stable.
The Swine flu and Peppered Moth are fossils, are they?we have the bones to prove evolution and we see it everyday look at the swine flu also at the The peppered moth
The Swine flu and Peppered Moth are fossils, are they?
The Swine flu and Peppered Moth are fossils, are they?
In response to the common design argument:
It doesn't explain things like the class of human endogenous retroviruses (HERV-K) that are in the same spot in both human and chimpanzee DNA. So there are a couple of explanations.
1. The proverbial "Adam and Eve" of both humans and chimpanzees were separately invected by not one retrovirus, but several several of the same retroviruses in the exact same spot in their genome, which was then passed on to their ancestors. The chances of this happening are astronomically unlikely.
2. The creator of chimpanzees and humans designed them both with what seem like remnants of retroviruses in their DNA in the exact same spots for some reason.
3. Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestors that were infected by retroviruses and then passed on to their descendants.
This is essentially the equivalent of an evolutionary paternity test. Unless we are willing to believe in the unlikely event of two separate identical infections or the equally unlikely event of a creator who infected his creations with retroviral DNA, this is simply the best argument for a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans. And there are other examples too with bonobos, gorillas, rhesus monkeys, etc, and when studied and compared, their DNA and the history contained in the genome reveal a family tree. If you believe in a theory of common design to explain similarities between the animal kingdom, then why does the creator insist on designing animals to appear as if they are related, rather than having form follow function?
Oh, sorry.AV, do you know what the word "and" means in that sentence? It was indicating a transition to a new thought. It means swine flu was being cited in addition to the fossils.
I know.evidence for evolution is not just found in fossils my friend
I know.
The example I've used over the years is my Roundup having to be stronger each year.
But remember:
It's still Roundup.
2
So you believe in so-called "microevolution" or adaptation, but not "macroevolution" or speciation. What do you think prevents animals from changing "too much"? Is there some sort of barrier that allows animals to change, but not change a lot?
Yes, but who in the Bible was fooled by evolution?1. Why? Couldn't God simply make evolution impossible through a natural and explainable barrier?
Occam's Razor.2. Further, why would God want to prevent evolution in the first place?
Your key words are: given no natural explanation.3. If God intervenes to prevent speciation, wouldn't that entail that, given no natural explanation, this interference is an observable act of God – a miracle?
I don't understand this question.4. Does God not care about plants or fruit flies or several other animals that have been observed changing into viable groups incapable of with their original group – speciation?
If that was God's plan for populating the earth with plants and animals, yes.And isn't this just an admission that speciation is possible if God allowed it to occur?
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?