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.
no its not. for instance: as we already discussed, if a system need at least several parts we cant evolve it by small steps. so small steps will not help in that case."Macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution". A lot of little changes add up to a big change. It's the same mechanism.
no its not. for instance: as we already discussed, if a system need at least several parts we cant evolve it by small steps.
Anything you say Alex Jones. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take conspiracy mongering seriously.
It is a real calculation. Hand-waving it away doesn't change that.
So we already know a probable evolutionary origin for those.
Sure it can, since there is nothing precluding the individual parts from arising independently. This is especially the case when one considers that individual parts can serve multiple functions in biology.
Sorry, I don't agree with that."Macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution". A lot of little changes add up to a big change. It's the same mechanism.
Post #200, ditto for you.Agreed. These attempts at blaming external forces for the failure of ID to catch on as science always preclude examining ID* itself for that failure.
I guess it's just easier to blame everything else.
(* Though I also get the feeling that a lot of creationists arguing for ID aren't particularly familiar with ID literature to begin with.)
Validating ID is not what I'm concerned about.Scrutinizing the ToE doesn't validate ID though.
Sorry, I don't agree with that.
if its base on assumption then its not. since we dont know how much time we need to evolve that system. so we cant realy know if evolution had enough time to evolve it.
again no. since we dont know how many mutations we need for the first step (and actually any step).
first: these individual parts are a part of other complex system. so you just push back the question to another system.
2) even these shared parts arent identical. so we need more mutations to make them match the new system.
3) even if they were identical, we need to calculate what is the chance to mix several parts to form a new complex system. and there is no such calculation.
so no- evolution has no real explanation even to a single organ. its not a good sign to a theory.
And yet to discover a big change, outside the hypothetical.I assume you mean that you think that there is some barrier in the DNA that prevents a lot of small changes from adding up to a big change. We have yet to discover such a barrier.
No problem... evolutionists will beat that to death.
There would be plenty of interest and scrutiny, much more than evolution ever encountered.You started a thread complaining about why ID is not taught as a legit alternative to evolution, but apparently have no interest in whether ID is actually valid as an alternative.
There would be plenty of interest and scrutiny, much more than evolution ever encountered.
There would be plenty of interest and scrutiny, much more than evolution ever encountered.
Sure it would.Sure. That's par for the course in any area of science that is attempting to overturn an existing scientific theory.
That said, if there really was an alternative to evolution that was legitimately superior in explanatory power, it would ultimately be accepted. Especially from those in industry with the highest vested interest in understanding of biology.
And yet to discover a big change, outside the hypothetical.
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?