- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I accept your account as a snapshot in time, but not evidence of evolution.
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.
-_- that your best argument against it? It's not like there isn't fossil evidence supporting my story, as you put it (fossilized bacteria colonies also are surrounded by byproducts of their metabolism).
I accept your account as a snapshot in time, but not evidence of evolution.
Is that because it's not good evidence? Or because your mind is made up and you're refusing to even consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how good the evidence?
Evolutionary evidence is but a series of snapshots in time, posed as if one magically morphed into the next.
Hey thats what a movie is!Evolutionary evidence is but a series of snapshots in time, posed as if one magically morphed into the next.
A simpler example is the parallel evolution of light sensitivity in nemotode worms which is not based on an opsin-class protein. The light sensitive protein involved LITE-1 was found to have evolved from a taste-sensitive protein. There's your first step right there. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...oundworms-sense-light-100-times-better-humans
What do you mean by this? Clearly there are no watches that have ANY of the traits I pointed out. Hence, your conclusions appears to be completely meaningless.
That there is no evidence for evolution.
That there is evidence of the Flood.
That there are no transitional fossils.
That there are no beneficial mutations.
That evolution is a "religion".
That evolution is the same as atheism.
etc. etc.
And yet germ theory of disease doesn't take God into the equation and I bet you're fine with it. The same goes for plate tectonic theory. Heck, your local weather forecast doesn't take God into the equation, but I bet you don't complain every time you read or watch it.
You cannot merely claim something is "flawed" or "not a fact". You're going to need to provide evidence showing it to be "flawed" or "not a fact". And as far as deep time goes, that had nothing to do with whatever conspiracy theory you're alluding to. It's based on solid science over the course of 200 years.
Geologic Time: Contents
but it will look like a watch. so why not call it a watch?
I showed you the evolution of the eye step by step. You're now just attempting the ever-smaller-and-smaller-and-more-inconsequential-missing-link argument by asking for
The explanation I have given is sufficiently detailed and the steps are small enough that it is an entirely reasonable description of the process. There are no steps in the process that are so big that they need individual explanation or further details. At least for anyone that understands evolution in general and the evidence for it. (Which might not include you of course.)
If the watch had ALL the traits that I list, then that would be enough to conclude that it evolved by a natural process. As I clearly said in my post. The analogies I see you posting are way off because you only posit a SINGLE such watch (or car or motorised marital aid or whatever else is your favourite gizmo of the day.) And it being a single item, that is way insufficient to assume natural processes.
Just in case you try to mis-quote me, I'll repeat the traits I listed here:
Evolution is a scientific theory that has been developed to explain ALL of life that we see, populations, species, and more. Not just one isolated thing.
actually this lite-1 gene isnt a taste receptor but a taste receptor homolog. means that they arent identical but similar. so we need at least several changes to evolve a light sensitive protein. even if it was possible to change it into a light sensitive protein it will be useless, since the creature will not be able to use it without another part/s that need to be able to translate it into the creature and make use of the new trait.
not a watch but we do find a spinning motor. so basically you agree that a motor isnt evidence for design.
And the link in post 347 from the abstract of pax gene formation . I’m going to advise you to look up the definitions of anything you don’t understand . Because if you can’t understand an abstract which is a brief summary of what’s in a scientific paper, then you have no basis for complaining about the science involved. Yes I understood it, no, I’m not going to explain it . You’re the one who needs the knowledge. Google those terms . And understand that all scientific knowledge is based on this-is-what-we-know-today
I will tell you this though . The insect eye gene and the mammal eye gene had different names,because for a very long time, we didn’t know that they were the same gene. In the 1990s they did an experiment switching eye genes between a mouse and a fruit fly.They didn’t think the experiments would work;that the mouse gene would work in a fly or vice versa. The switched genes worked beautifully . And they also did this experiment with other basic body plan genes: limb formation , nervous system formation, gut formation etc. and they all worked . Now vertebrates have been separated from arthropods since the Precambrian so they had no idea that these experiments would demonstrate common descent so vividly.
You didn't show the evolution of the eye. You showed a theory of how the eye might have evolved. No one has ever seen it happen and you can't reproduce or test the theory. All you have is supposition. A wild guess because you believe in evolution. Yet you have zero evidence of it ever happening.
Actually they show common design. You assume they show common ancestry. All they really show is common design.
If it's real, it can be examined, with verifiable evidence.
what poor design are you referring to?
Ahh... I see,
...so looking at the things you mention and interpreting differently than evolutionists is a lie. Got it.
So if we say there are not transitional fossils that's a lie. But the fact that you interpret fossil discoveries as transitional even though you have no real evidence that they are is not a lie. Got it.
I don't play pigeon chess with creationists.
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?