- Aug 14, 2019
- 9,082
- 8,298
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Typical dodge-the-issue response from the evolutionist camp.
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.
Typical dodge-the-issue response from the evolutionist camp.No thanks. I'm not interested in how ICR misrepresents that research.
Not really. Fossils are relatively uncommon as most carcases are disposed of by other animals. As it happens, many creationists (me included) argue for the world wide flood (aka Noah's flood) as the cause of much fossilisation. It still happens right now, if the conditions are suitable. Fossils alone do not destroy the evolution myth. It is much more fundamental than that.
Hundreds of rounds of speciation? Wow, golly, I don't know...How come no one can produce this amazing effect in a lab?
You think evolution is about turning a living taxon into another living taxon?No one has been able to turn a fruit fly into a bee or a wasp or whatever.
You've never seen DNA sequence data, have you?Last figure I had was 3,000 variants. Every one was still a fruit fly. Of course, you can genetically engineer something. Which takes a great deal of ingenuity and intelligence. Not totally random events.
And creationists have an amazing capacity to ignore or reject any and everything that hey think might counter their mere beliefs based on ancient stories.Evolutionists have an amazing capacity to make the observations fit the theory, sorry, "facts".
Every few months?Every few months some new discovery comes along that blows some evolutionary "fact" out of the water.
Sure there.There is NO mechanism that enables evolution.
Were those variations there before?3,000 fruit flies are just variations, they have not evolved.
They are a great example of natural selection. Never claimed to be more than that.Darwin's finches are still finches, whatever beak length they have.
You don't seem to be very adept at keeping track of these things.The "Cambrian Explosion"? It was a 70 million year period when I was younger. Now that "fact" has been amended to 10 million years.
I don't care that people believe in creationism. I care that this myth is promoted as fact and that a reasonable and plausible alternative is prevented from being taught in church.I don't care that people believe in evolution. I care that this myth is promoted as fact and that a reasonable and plausible alternative is prevented from being taught.
I was privileged to be taught both evolution and creation as equally valid propositions. Evolution made little sense to me. It was not a religious decision. I was not a Christian. Evolution makes even less sense now.
Don't know much about bird evolution - but I am curious if you can explain - step by step, of course - how the Hebrew deity transformed silicates into the thousands of bio-organic molecules needed to created a man from dust.You sill aren't being clear, I need the whole thing...what did you "know about evolution" in the case of the feathered species of dinosaurs, that predicted what, and what does all of it prove?
Step by step please.
Where are the remains of all of your ancestors from Adam to you?Not buying it, not even close. I avoided the term as long as I possibly could but this is so far from adding up, it's "ridiculous". My last few posts may or may not help.
At say, an average of 40yrs per generation (choose whatever reasonable number you like there) how many generations would you guess came between ape and man as we know him today?
That is not at all evidence in the essay you linked to - did you just do a keyword search and link to the first thing that popped up?I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.
Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you. I will leave you with this.So post something from a trustworthy source.
Not the first thing. I've known about the fruit fly dream for many years. Same with Miller experiments. It's fairly old hat now, but speedwell asked.That is not at all evidence in the essay you linked to - did you just do a keyword search and link to the first thing that popped up?
You haven't shown me anything yet.Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you.
I never know how to respond to posts like this without hurting the feelings of the poster, so I hope you won't take it personally: Nothing in that post has anything whatsoever to do with the real theory of evolution.I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.
Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you. I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.
Ah, so you did a keyword search - did you actually read the link?Not the first thing.
Doesn't seem that way.I've known about the fruit fly dream for many years.
And what of the Miller experiments? surely, you do not actually think he set out to create life? that is a big old creationist lie. He set out to test Oparin's hypothesis about the reducing atmosphere.Same with Miller experiments. It's fairly old hat now, but speedwell asked.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel?
That's a selective misrepresentation of the work, presumably intended for those who aren't prepared to study the paper themselves, or who don't understand it, or who just want to mislead the gullible.I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.
And in real life (i.e., not in labs) - the Hawaiian drosophila (and crickets, and probably others) are pretty well documented. And their phenotypic differences are noteworthy:There are plenty of papers showing the evolution of fruit flies in the lab, available to people who have a basic understanding of what to look for and can use Google.
Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you. I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.
What you are writing is an argument from incredulity based on a wholly incorrect conceptual and factual understanding of evolution.
If you want to solve this you need to start with basic educational resources on biology and evolution.
Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution
also it was 40 million years ago when monkeys first appeared
and 30 million years ago when apes split from monkeys
and 7 million years ago when we split from other apes, hence the 175 thousand, to 262.5 thousand generations. You can at least be bothered to read it before you complain about being ignored.
and on the evidence thing, it's been explained multiple times. We knew birds evolved from dinosaurs and as we find more fossils we find more and more evidence that backs that up. The dinosaurs that birds evolved from having feathers, the progression of morphogical changes through the fossil record fitting what we already knew. what more do you think we would need to prove birds evolved from dinosaurs?
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?