Do you have evidence that life 3 billion years ago was more complex than life today?
Or heck, do you have any evidence that CELLS were more complex 3 billion years ago was more complex than cells today?
Upvote
0
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.
If you say that life was more complex when it started than now, then we agree.
Do you have evidence that life 3 billion years ago was more complex than life today?
Or heck, do you have any evidence that CELLS were more complex 3 billion years ago was more complex than cells today?
Then you don't know the meaning of imaginary, because that's exactly what they are, imagined.
Only if assuming there is any connection.
Evidence is only evidence, not a conclusion.
Easy enough to rebuke if you'd like to make a point. But that way it's worded.....I mean obviously they wouldn't support a outdated version of a theory.
You mean the use of a word people have defined is wrong because it doesn't sit well with you?
Yes. You can search my old posts for "cells" you might find it.
So we only imagine that people, dogs, cats, horses, birds, etc. --in fact, every land-walking vertebrate -- has exactly four limbs, not two, not six, and definitely not any odd number, and that the bones in those limbs can be matched up one-for-one. Homologous structures are certainly not imaginary.
No. The word is nonsense. Evolution has no set direction, so change in any direction is still evolution. Devolution has no meaning. It is only used to mean "evolution in the wrong direction" by people who do not accept evolution in the first place. It is not used by evolutionists and not accepted by Creationists. It is nonsense.
Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.
Are you saying that they're not similar? Forget about whether there's a link or not; are they similar?
Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.
No, they haven't. Vestigial does not mean without function. Finding a function for a vestigial organ does not refute the vestigial argument. The human coccyx does not support a tail, therefore it is vestigial. The functions it does have are rudimentary functions in the same way that a typewriter acting as a paperweight is a rudimentary function for the typewriter. You also made the claim that none of the human ancestors had tails. Still waiting for the evidence to back up this claim. Where is it?
Lots of things look similar.
When fetuses do occasionally grow tails, they are not functional or in the right place or give indication that they are a vestigial structure.
True. But I didn't ask if they looked similar; I asked if the are similar. Because the things we're talking about as being homologous are similar in a whole bunch of ways besides how they look. Structure, orientation, location, composition, development, etcetera, etcetera. They are similar on multiple levels besides how they look. Sometimes they don't even look similar, but upon further inspection the similarities abound.
The evidence does point to a common designer.
That's always been my stand.
As a software designer, I see it all the time.
But similar and even identical code can come from a common source
OR
a completely unrelated source that needs to accomplish the same result.
Another example, there is a person in my town who I get mistaken for.
I even have conversations with people and can not convince them that I am not him.
Your point fails, dead in the water.
The evidence does point to a common designer.
That's always been my stand.
As a software designer, I see it all the time.
But similar and even identical code can come from a common source
OR
a completely unrelated source that needs to accomplish the same result.
Software (nor any other creation/design) does not fall into a nested hierarchy. Especially if a god is doing the common designing, it's not at all necessary. But it is an inevitable result of evolution. Lo and behold, life falls into a nested (double-nested, even) hierarchy.Technically, yes, the evidence can point to a common designer. But ANY ARRANGEMENT OF LIFE AT ALL could point to a common designer. And yet we have the aforementioned nested hierarchy, an arrangement that is a necessary result of evolution.The fact that a "common designer" could explain anything isn't really even evidence at all, especially when the alternative is dependent on a very specific situation that matches what is observed.Say I have two chefs who want to cook a meal for me. The first, I tell him to make whatever he feels like. Anything at all. The second, I secretly tell that he must cook me an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese.My first meal comes. It is an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. Based on the meal presented, which chef do you think prepared that meal, #1 or #2? Chef #1 certainly could have prepared it; he's capable of making a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. He's capable of making anything at all! But the fact he's capable of making it doesn't mean he did, and can't really serve as evidence that he did. The fact that chef #2 had to make a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese and that's what I got is strong evidence that he was the chef that prepared the meal. Similarly, all relevant evidence (yes, all) is just what you'd expect if evolution were chef #2.
Yes they are. You're asking me to imagine a link between the image of two similar looking structures and to see similarities. It's ALL imagination, top to bottom. Such comparisons and structures exist only in the imagination.
O.K.
So you don't like this word and have disdain for people who use words you don't like.
Got it.
dev·o·lu·tion/ˌdevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:
The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
devolution [ˌdiːvəˈluːʃən]
n
1. the act, fact, or result of devolving
2. a passing onwards or downwards from one stage to another
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another word for degeneration [3]
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a transfer or allocation of authority, esp from a central government to regional governments or particular interests
[from Medieval Latin dēvolūtiō a rolling down, from Latin dēvolvere to roll down, sink into; see devolve]
devolutionary adj
devolutionist n & adj
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devolve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
No, it's not.We're not talking about vague similarities. We are talking about complex structures that contain many different parts. What are the odds of two completely unrelated creatures evolving parts that share such common features?If you saw two books, and there was a 2000 word passage in both of them that was just about identical, would you conclude that each author had come up with it by themselves?
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?