-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How did blood clotting evolve?
- Thread starter FaithfulServant
- Start date
Upvote
0
The proteases in the clotting cascade are closly related and probably evolved from digestive enzymes by gene duplication.
Ken Miller has addressed this here
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html
FB
Ken Miller has addressed this here
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html
FB
Upvote
0
Here is a reference to a further paper by Jiang and Doolittle on the
Evolution of Blood Clotting.
FB
Evolution of Blood Clotting.
FB
Upvote
0
ChrisS
Senior Veteran
Frumious Bandersnatch said:
You see, here's the thing. You assume that evolution is true, and because of that you assume that this had to of evolved. However, you have no evidence directly showing that this evolved. Saying that God created it holds just as much merit as saying that it evolved.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
ChrisS said:
One characteristic used to evaluate scientific theories is fruitfulness or ability to guide a research program.
"Goddidit" has no fruitfulness, makes no predictions, guides no research programs.
evolution, as the paper referenced above as: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12808152
shows, enables researchers to look for, and predict specific things. in this case, the desire to look for precursor molecules, as part of a prediction based on TofE that they ought to exist.
so we don't even have to embark upon the metaphysical argument of whether creationism or evolutionary theory is more true. creationism is simply useless as a guide to scientific research.
as any browsing of creationist literature will show, as it is not so much pro-creation as anti-evolutionary, not building an alternative explanatory system but rather sniping at science.
after posting thought:
i wrote an extended paper for Dr Russell Doolittle more than 25 years ago that argued that science needed a loyal opposition to evolutionary theory to challenge the unexamined assumptions flowing from metaphysics and a secular worldview, at the time i thought the YECists were going to be this. as things turned out, Stephen Jay Gould fitted my idea better than did the YECists. interesting.
....
Upvote
0
ChrisS said:
This is truly pathetic. This specific topic has certainly been brought up in the past. Is this the creationist tactic, then? I always wondered why they'd bring up the same (previously answered) points before - I guess so that one day, when people finally get sick of answering it, they can proclaim victory.
One good link deserves another.
Upvote
0
Hydra009
bel esprit
- Oct 28, 2003
- 8,593
- 371
- 43
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Exactly. It doesn't, because EVOLUTION =/= ATHEISM.ChrisS said:How again is this a counter to argument that God created humanity? I don't see how that contradicts what the Bible preaches.
Upvote
0
ChrisS said:Like I said before, no good counter arguments.
How again is this a counter to argument that God created humanity
Uh?
Upvote
0
ChrisS said:
Except for the tiny little fact that we have observed mechanisms of evolution and evolutionary change, but absolutely no observed mechanism of God creating something. So no, the "Goddidit" scenario holds no merit.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
