Natural selection v Intelligent design

[paulm50]

I'm not sure it was purely to do with power. There have been plenty of examples of people and nations exerting their power without the need for a bible or God.

Example please, from the same times of the OT and NT.

Just because you claim to be religious or a Christian doesn't mean you are. Many religious people can be hypocrites and say one thing and do another. Especially in today's materialistic world. But I believe anyone can know that true happiness isn't found in material things. I am personally happy to have a faith in God and you are right that it is personal. I cant make anyone believe what I believe. It has to be something each person comes to and it is between them and God.

It's a question of what people believe in, it's ibn what they do.

I think not just in an afterlife but also in this life. People want some meaning and have this internal knowledge that there is more to life than what we see or are presented with. It seems in a time in modern life when we have been striving and achieving for decades to obtain a better and happier life many are getting depressed and ending their lives. You would think with all we have done and have that we would have found real peace and happiness. But it seems the more we try to make it the more we miss the point.

Agreed people want answers and in olden times they only had magic in the form of god. We have learned a lot since then and finding there are natural causes for much of what was claimed as "god's doing". People used to sacrifice people to ensure a good harvest, or rain.

Yes but there is a catch. Evolution has been proven as far as creatures changing and adaption within their kinds and to a limit (micro evolution). But what some do is take this and say that these same things can then make a creature become something completely different and take on new genetic info. That hasn't been proven in all the tests done so far. This is the tricky part where some get caught. So to an extent people have to have faith in that because it has never been observed.

Do more research on the subject. Even if you're right. It disproves the bible story.

I think for more mainstream countries its more a case of a fair go. Christians dont want to ban science but they would like a fair go for God and creation as well. To have their side considered. Especially if there may be some evidence for it and that there may also be some evidence that evolution isn't as fact as some make out. At the very least it should be stated more often that things are not so straightforward with evolution.

The evidence for evolution is popping up all the time.

Instead of this story telling where some are putting the flesh on the bones of the evolution story and giving all these details in schools and books like its fact. They should be qualifying things by stating that some of this is not fact and its only speculated. They should be including some of the tests and peer reviewed work done in ID as well to give the other side of the story.

Bones coming out of the ground are fact. What are you saying isn't fact? You're wrong about species changing. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, Humans evolved from Apes, via the Hominid Family. These are facts and the evidence is in the bones.

Its not all myth and thats the problem. whether its God or some other supernatural being or its an alien race who are doing some sort of experiment. The fact is there is complexity in life that goes beyond a naturalistic explanation. If we cant acknowledge this then we are being foolish. Because it denies something that is there and then we are being ignorant. We may be able to find new approaches and insights.

No where in the bible does it mention experimenting. I will take this point of view and expose it.

If there was a designer individual or race. It has to be one of two routes. Kicking off the process with the first cells doubling and trebling, etc. Or a constant experiment with the designer or designers revisiting Earth on millions of occasions to redesign creature to fir into the new environment.

After they got the species up to fish, they start to think of putting some on land, os design a fish that has lungs. Then seeing it can't walk properly, they design one with legs, and so on. Not just once, they would have to repeat the process millions of times with 1,000s of different groups of species. The Earth currently has millions of different species of animals. Now add all those that went extinct. OK that's an educated guess, but does it sound logical a designer would be coming back or staying here to get it right, for that time and environment on Earth?

Not to mention coming back when disaster hit.

The thing is if science keeps heading hitting some dead ends with what they believe then they are not being open to other possibilities. Some are now saying the more we discovery lately the more we are finding God. The strange world of quantum physics, the complex world of genetics and the ever expanding finely tuned universe are bringing up challenges that may be beyond the science and natural world as we know it.

Yes it does, and then it finds more evidence and gets past the dead end, or goes back and sees how it got it wrong and corrects itself.

Yes a god may exist, he may of kicked the whole thing off, he may of come back millions of times to re-design. And that's still to be found out. And creates a complete dead end for Genesis. Which it can't get around and you're proving it.

 

[stevevw]

I already corrected your misconception regarding this point in the past. I'm not doing it again. You didn't listen then and you won't listen now.

The point I am making is you are assuming things and you havnt done any checks to find out if you are right in what you believe in the first place. By not even looking you cant know so that in itself is an assumption from ignorance and unfair. You have stated this reason for the last several times we have debated. Each time I state something and each time you say prove it. Each time I post proof and each time you dismiss it. Why ask for proof in the first place if you have already decided to dismiss it.

How does one become an expert in ID? Join a creationist propaganda mill?

See by the tone of your comments I can see why you are dismissing things. You have a pre judged view of anything religious. So anything that will have a religious association even if its true or qualified doesn't have a chance. That in itself is prejudiced and biased. But even if it isn't religiously connected because it even comes from someone who believes its automatically branded and associated with being suspect. So nothing really has a chance with you does it. Thats unless I probably post something that supports you views. But then even if I did you wouldn't know because you dont even look at it.

Except that that's not happening. You've misinterpreted their work. I even encouraged you to contact the authors' of one paper to clarify the point. You wouldn't. Why was that?

Thats because I am not in the business of contacting anyone about their work. I wouldn't even know where to start. Besides what you want me to contact him for wasn't what I was talking about from memory. So why would I want to contact someone based on what you thought. Besides even if it supported evolution overall there were aspects that I was referring to that didn't support particular parts of evolution. Thats the thing in that even pro evolutionary papers can show that evolution may not really happen by the difficulties they address.

Others will see I post a lot of stuff and if there was something that didn't completely support what I said then what about the bulk of other stuff that did. Thats the point you may remember something like that but forget the many others that did support what I said. I leave it for others to judge what I post as being relevant or not. I may not understand everything but I try and if something slips through that is not completely supportive then I may not have completely understood it.

It may also be that there are some aspects of what I post that dont support my views. But I am using that particular article because even though it may support the evolutionary view it also is showing evidence for design or that evolution is false in other things it says. Afterall I find that if I cite any links with religious connects they are quickly dismissed. So I have to find stuff that is from evolutionists that is also showing support for God and design. But all this doesn't bring the whole house down and makes everything else I post wrong like you are trying to make out. You seem to be fixated on this one issue and that is stopping you from seeing a whole lot more.

You don't know what an argument from ignorance is.

Yes I do but you keep asserting that the argument is from ignorance and a lack of evidence. I keep saying that it is not totally lacking evidence. I am also not even saying that what I believe is fact as in a scientific method and have acknowledge d this many times. I have posed the question and said tat if science can appeal to things based on loose indirect evidence like multiverses, hologram worlds, worm holes and time travel then we can also appeal to a God or a supernatural agent based on loose indirect evidence of design in nature, a finely tuned universe, the complexity of life, that something doesn't come from nothing and life doesn't come from non life.

You didn't answer my question.

It was a general statemnet. Who knows what those new discoveries may be or what they may look like. Thats the point being open and including all possibilities will allow us to find them. But if we have a pre determined view that nothing can happen beyond science and the natural world then we wont see it for what it is. We may try to explain it away and be forever stuck in not finding an answer which may help us discover more. When we look at whats happening in astrophysics and quantum physics and how we are seeing things we cannot explain with the ways in which we have explained things before.

How do we know that the answers to these things is beyond the science and into realms of the supernatural. They certainly act like that. Thats why even scientists are coming up with far fetched explanations. But of course they say that its science even if it sounds all science fiction or out of this world. Some already say that some aspects of the scientific method can restrict our thinking and ability to progress.

 

[paulm50]

Yes but there is a catch. Evolution has been proven as far as creatures changing and adaption within their kinds and to a limit (micro evolution). But what some do is take this and say that these same things can then make a creature become something completely different and take on new genetic info. That hasn't been proven in all the tests done so far. This is the tricky part where some get caught. So to an extent people have to have faith in that because it has never been observed.

Evolutionists don't claim that and neither does Darwin.

What they say is, a mouse than can jump higher than the other mice, is more likely to feed himself and his offspring better. Passing on his genes to the next generation, produces a very slightly better jumper. Repeat the process a million times, and you have a Kangaroo. Simplified because it could of gone and created a kangaroo mouse in less stages.

Now apply that to groups of animals where only the Alpha Male passes on his genes and the weakest in the litter dies.

After the Asteroid hit the Earth and killed all the large predators, the mice came out from their burrow to an abundance of food, dead dinosaurs. Those that could fit in, would prosper, those that didn't died. Multiply it a 500,000 times over millions of years and we have monkeys in trees.

Suddenly one decides there's better picking on the ground, so leaves the trees 100% and spend half his time on the ground and half in the trees. We have found an Ape that walked upright and has feet that can grab branches for climbing.

This has happened to millions of species. So;

Designer theory = A permanent group of designers making adjustments all the time.
Evolution theory = Nature adapts species over millions of years to fit , according to the demands of nature.
Bible theory = It all happened over 6 days and the first sons, went straight into farming.

Which one sounds the most logical, given one theory is growing in knowledge all the time?

 

[KCfromNC]

Hey I have a question? Are ancient ape genes recessive in humans?

Yep. There are also dominant ones. And there is DNA from some of the diseases they were infected with. And surprise, surprise, the patterns seen in all of these DNA sequences is a nested hierarchy, just as evolution would predict.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Theres that pre assumption and judgement popping up again.

You've said this before but you havnt shown me what you are talking about. But surely in all the posts I have linked you are not saying they are all rubbish and wrong. I am sensing that you dont want to deal with this because you may find that there is stuff you will have to concede is a challenge to your views.

No steve, it really is because I don't want to waste my time. If you recall our previous discussion on evolution, I did actually read your links, and I demonstrated that they do not support your position.

The problem is when I make a claim you ask for proof as you did just before I posted last time when you asked for proof. When I do post the evidence you dismiss it. It seems to go around and around on this merry go round. I make a claim you ask for evidence but dismiss it as soon as I post it without even looking at it. I mean you dont even look at one and then say its all rubbish. Talk about pre judging something before you even find out what its about.

I know what your posts are about.

I wouldn't think the effort to deal with one or two would be achievable. It makes me sense that you are avoiding something because you may have to deal with some difficult questions. Wonder whose zooming who. Look I will post one for you to make it easier.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

Go ahead and explain how that paper supports your position.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point I am making is you are assuming things and you havnt done any checks to find out if you are right in what you believe in the first place. By not even looking you cant know so that in itself is an assumption from ignorance and unfair. You have stated this reason for the last several times we have debated. Each time I state something and each time you say prove it. Each time I post proof and each time you dismiss it. Why ask for proof in the first place if you have already decided to dismiss it.

Because you make claims and then post seemingly random links without explaining how they support your claims. Anyone can do that. What's worse is that some of the links you post overtly contradict what you're saying, leading me to suspect that you don't read most of the material you link to carefully enough anyway.

See by the tone of your comments I can see why you are dismissing things. You have a pre judged view of anything religious.

No, just your posts.

So anything that will have a religious association even if its true or qualified doesn't have a chance. That in itself is prejudiced and biased. But even if it isn't religiously connected because it even comes from someone who believes its automatically branded and associated with being suspect. So nothing really has a chance with you does it. Thats unless I probably post something that supports you views. But then even if I did you wouldn't know because you dont even look at it.

We've been around this merry-go-around before, remember? You posted links to papers that did NOT support your position; papers that actually contradicted what you were saying.

Thats because I am not in the business of contacting anyone about their work. I wouldn't even know where to start. Besides what you want me to contact him for wasn't what I was talking about from memory. So why would I want to contact someone based on what you thought. Besides even if it supported evolution overall there were aspects that I was referring to that didn't support particular parts of evolution. Thats the thing in that even pro evolutionary papers can show that evolution may not really happen by the difficulties they address.

Excuses, steve.

Others will see I post a lot of stuff and if there was something that didn't completely support what I said then what about the bulk of other stuff that did.

Ah, that's the beauty of the gish gallop, isn't it? When you post an avalanche of content, you can always claim that there is something someone didn't address that might have been right.

Thats the point you may remember something like that but forget the many others that did support what I said. I leave it for others to judge what I post as being relevant or not. I may not understand everything but I try and if something slips through that is not completely supportive then I may not have completely understood it.

I showed you that you didn't completely understand convergent evolution. But you didn't seem to care.

It was a general statemnet. Who knows what those new discoveries may be or what they may look like. Thats the point being open and including all possibilities will allow us to find them. But if we have a pre determined view that nothing can happen beyond science and the natural world then we wont see it for what it is. We may try to explain it away and be forever stuck in not finding an answer which may help us discover more. When we look at whats happening in astrophysics and quantum physics and how we are seeing things we cannot explain with the ways in which we have explained things before.

Still haven't answered my question. It's not clear how supernaturalism is supposed to further our understanding.

 

[pshun2404]

The question in this thread does not presuppose supernaturalism is supposed to further our understanding, and Steve has not made that claim. So why keep insisting that this is required to be answered when his attempts to support his view are not even being addressed? After all, neither intelligence or design are supernatural only, for both exist IN nature. Blanket dismissal is indicative of a closed mind. And by the way, convergent evolution is only one of the man made explanations (one way of interpreting the evidence) and is not "established" as true only agreed upon by members of that philosophical position.

 

[stevevw]

Evolutionists don't claim that and neither does Darwin.

What they say is, a mouse than can jump higher than the other mice, is more likely to feed himself and his offspring better. Passing on his genes to the next generation, produces a very slightly better jumper. Repeat the process a million times, and you have a Kangaroo. Simplified because it could of gone and created a kangaroo mouse in less stages.

Now apply that to groups of animals where only the Alpha Male passes on his genes and the weakest in the litter dies

Just as Darwin stated with the finches. When food was harder to find and they had to crack the kurnells of seeds those with bigger beaks survived and passed on the genes for bigger beaks. That became the dominate feature in the group. But this is just a variation within a kind. Thats the same for faster or slower, bigger or smaller, different colors, thin fur or thick fur or no fur ect.

But the mechanism for this is then taken and extended to say that through chance mutations and natural selection one shaped creature will gradually turn into another shaped creature or morph features it never had before like wings, lungs, eyes, sex organs, biological systems, muscles, tissues, brain neurons, nerves and all the genetic info that goes along with them. So evolution can create new complex structures from things that were not there to begin with.

When you look at a single cell organism such as bacteria and then move forward to fish then amphibians, then reptiles, birds, mammals and eventually humans new shapes and abilities are being created. Evolution is based on common decent so everything goes back to the single celled life. They break it down into small stages so that it does seem so daunting and miraculous. Its easier to imagine an amphibian morphing into a reptile as they look similar. But when you look close you see that the stages for even that to happen are complex and go beyond chance mutations which are mainly a neutral or a cost to life and fitness (copying mistake). So when you stand back and see a bacteria and then a fish there is a lot of change involved overall. It is definitely taking on new info, ability and shapes that was not there before.

Its the creation of better and more complex life from something that actually does the opposite overall. When darwins finches evolved different beaks after some time when things settle they reverted back to their natural state. So in a sense they de evolved because that was the state they were made in. When they do tests or breeding they find that their are limits to what they can create. The creatures either have defects or get weaker when they move to far away from the natural state. So when you stand back and see a bacteria and then a fish there is a lot of change involved overall. Evolutionists including Darwin definitely claim that new info, ability and shapes that was not there before can be achieved.

After the Asteroid hit the Earth and killed all the large predators, the mice came out from their burrow to an abundance of food, dead dinosaurs. Those that could fit in, would prosper, those that didn't died. Multiply it a 500,000 times over millions of years and we have monkeys in trees

Suddenly one decides there's better picking on the ground, so leaves the trees 100% and spend half his time on the ground and half in the trees. We have found an Ape that walked upright and has feet that can grab branches for climbing.

Yes thats the story evolution has said. But there is no conclusive proof. They did not observe this. They base it on the fossil record and the geology. But as some say it can be a circular reasoning. The fossils are dictated by the theory and the theory is shaped by the fossils. When they find a fossil out of place that contradicts their theory they make it a new species even if is exactly the same as ones in other layers. They come up with new ideas to explain any anomaly like convergent or punctuated evolution.

This has happened to millions of species. So;

Designer theory = A permanent group of designers making adjustments all the time.
Evolution theory = Nature adapts species over millions of years to fit , according to the demands of nature.
Bible theory = It all happened over 6 days and the first sons, went straight into farming.

Which one sounds the most logical, given one theory is growing in knowledge all the time?

When you look at some of the scientific evidence that has been coming out you begin to see that there may be a case for design. When you consider the implausibility of chance mutation creating such complexity and then things like the explosion of complex body forms in the blink of an eye in evolution time scales without any trace of where they came from then maybe design is not so far fetched. A lot of research is showing that complexity in the genetics had to be there very early in time and too early for a gradual evolution to create it. There is evidence showing the limits and difficulties of evolving multi mutations that are needed for these complex genetics and body plans. There are tests showing the limits of evolution.

There are many proofs showing the manly anomalies and contradictions of evolution such as the relations that have been created by the theory between many animals being contradicted. When you put all this together it begins to build a case saying that evolution is not as people have made out. Yes there is a limited form of evolution with species which allows them to adapt with an environment. This can add a great amount of variety. Mutations can add some limited change but it is mostly neutral and unselected for and comes at a cost to fitness. The genome is an amazing mechanism that can correct copying mistakes and works best when left basically the same. In fact there is some research that is showing our genetics are deteriorating through harmful mutations if anything over time.

 

[paulm50]

Just as Darwin stated with the finches. When food was harder to find and they had to crack the kurnells of seeds those with bigger beaks survived and passed on the genes for bigger beaks. That became the dominate feature in the group. But this is just a variation within a kind. Thats the same for faster or slower, bigger or smaller, different colors, thin fur or thick fur or no fur ect.

But the mechanism for this is then taken and extended to say that through chance mutations and natural selection one shaped creature will gradually turn into another shaped creature or morph features it never had before like wings, lungs, eyes, sex organs, biological systems, muscles, tissues, brain neurons, nerves and all the genetic info that goes along with them. So evolution can create new complex structures from things that were not there to begin with.

Read the evidence of the similarities between us and fish. It will prove how it worked.

When you look at a single cell organism such as bacteria and then move forward to fish then amphibians, then reptiles, birds, mammals and eventually humans new shapes and abilities are being created. Evolution is based on common decent so everything goes back to the single celled life. They break it down into small stages so that it does seem so daunting and miraculous. Its easier to imagine an amphibian morphing into a reptile as they look similar. But when you look close you see that the stages for even that to happen are complex and go beyond chance mutations which are mainly a neutral or a cost to life and fitness (copying mistake). So when you stand back and see a bacteria and then a fish there is a lot of change involved overall. It is definitely taking on new info, ability and shapes that was not there before.

Read the evidence of the similarities between us and fish. It will prove how it worked.

Its the creation of better and more complex life from something that actually does the opposite overall. When darwins finches evolved different beaks after some time when things settle they reverted back to their natural state. So in a sense they de evolved because that was the state they were made in. When they do tests or breeding they find that their are limits to what they can create. The creatures either have defects or get weaker when they move to far away from the natural state. So when you stand back and see a bacteria and then a fish there is a lot of change involved overall. Evolutionists including Darwin definitely claim that new info, ability and shapes that was not there before can be achieved.

Yes thats the story evolution has said. But there is no conclusive proof. They did not observe this. They base it on the fossil record and the geology. But as some say it can be a circular reasoning. The fossils are dictated by the theory and the theory is shaped by the fossils. When they find a fossil out of place that contradicts their theory they make it a new species even if is exactly the same as ones in other layers. They come up with new ideas to explain any anomaly like convergent or punctuated evolution.


When you look at some of the scientific evidence that has been coming out you begin to see that there may be a case for design. When you consider the implausibility of chance mutation creating such complexity and then things like the explosion of complex body forms in the blink of an eye in evolution time scales without any trace of where they came from then maybe design is not so far fetched. A lot of research is showing that complexity in the genetics had to be there very early in time and too early for a gradual evolution to create it. There is evidence showing the limits and difficulties of evolving multi mutations that are needed for these complex genetics and body plans. There are tests showing the limits of evolution.

There are many proofs showing the manly anomalies and contradictions of evolution such as the relations that have been created by the theory between many animals being contradicted. When you put all this together it begins to build a case saying that evolution is not as people have made out. Yes there is a limited form of evolution with species which allows them to adapt with an environment. This can add a great amount of variety. Mutations can add some limited change but it is mostly neutral and unselected for and comes at a cost to fitness. The genome is an amazing mechanism that can correct copying mistakes and works best when left basically the same. In fact there is some research that is showing our genetics are deteriorating through harmful mutations if anything over time.

Read the evidence of the similarities between us and fish. It will prove how it worked.

Your view is based on a lack of knowledge. So rather than do the research for you, I suggest you use Google and see how far we have got in establishing the links between the species as they evolved. For instance, we have tail bones and fetuses have gills.

Or establish the theory of Creation, with a god like being or beings, living on Earth and constantly morphing species over and over again. Prove your theory instead of trying to knock holes in well established proof.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If the idea of ID is that we are analogous to a purpose made machine, shouldn't there be a trace of how we were "put together". If the body is seamless, then how do we resemble for example a purpose made vaccuum cleaner?

 

[paulm50]

Finding a few flaws in Evolution, doesn't prove Creation.

According to the Creation theory, none of the flaws, or the species/elements that have the flaw. Should even exist. There was no experimentation, no trial and error, no evolution. It was all created once by a a creator.

The problem for Creationists, is that's so illogical with 21st Century knowledge. They can't offer it, so have to go find flaws in the other sides proof. Therebye, confirming the proof exists.

 

[stevevw]

No steve, it really is because I don't want to waste my time. If you recall our previous discussion on evolution, I did actually read your links, and I demonstrated that they do not support your position.

Thats strange then because as far as I know you are not the expert in this field. The links I used were from the experts who stated that the examples I used were in support of showing the difficulties of evolution. They came from a anti evolution site. So not only are you saying I am wrong but also the expert biologists and geneticist who supplied them. Remember it wasn't my evidence but the evidence of the sites I used which were against evolution and using those particular articles as examples.

Go ahead and explain how that paper supports your position.

The paper uses several well known examples of what evolution uses to show the gain of new info to make a case for evolution. ie the bacteria being able to digest nylon, how colobine monkeys were able to digest leaves with changes in their digestive systems, the duplication and Gene Fusion in the Case of Sdic, fish developing antifreeze to adapt to the freezing temperatures in lakes and a few other examples often used as proof of evolution.

The paper goes through each case showing how these examples are either the tweaking of existing info and that any evidence for change is at a cost to fitness or not under strong selective pressure and are neutral. This is what has been stated by those who question evolution by saying that it is limited and that mutations are basically copying mistakes and are mostly corrected, not selected or elimination. That most changes involve existing genetics and often its the deletion of some part of an existing gene that adds the function. But this wont be an advantage because overall it is taking away something and is really a set back rather than a positive thing that will be selected for.

Some added function can come this way but it is limited and certainly isn't anywhere near the range of what evolutionists say or what is needed to evolve the vest variety and complexity we see in all living creatures in the past and living today. But this is what most of what I post is saying in one way or another. This is what a lot of the research is saying for those who choose to look beyond the promoted story of evolution.

The problem is evolution can misinterpret the evidence and use inconclusive results or results that even point to the opposite or at best indicating that no strong selection is being made that is enough to show the evolution of new info and function. The examples that are covered in this paper are the well known ones and they are easily explained. But you would think if evolution was such a fact that there would be thousands of examples and it wouldn't be so ambiguous. Like I and others have said Evolution takes something true limited evolution within a kind and uses that to try and say that it can have almost unlimited ability to create many different shapes, functions and complexities when there is no real evidence to show this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thats strange then because as far as I know you are not the expert in this field. The links I used were from the experts who stated that the examples I used were in support of showing the difficulties of evolution.

No, I showed you that you were wrong on that point. In one particular case, I even showed you that the paper you cited provided an example of convergent evolution, which was contrary to your claim that convergent evolution does not happen. In another case, I quoted from the paper to show you that the author explicitly disagreed with your view.

They came from a anti evolution site. So not only are you saying I am wrong but also the expert biologists and geneticist who supplied them. Remember it wasn't my evidence but the evidence of the sites I used which were against evolution and using those particular articles as examples.

I'm not surprised that they came from an anti-evolution website. However, the papers you cited did not support your anti-evolution claims, which I presume also came from the same website. Why would you even trust an anti-evolution website to begin with? If you want to know about evolutionary biology, you don't go to an anti-evolution (anti-science) website.

 

[stevevw]

Read the evidence of the similarities between us and fish. It will prove how it worked.
Read the evidence of the similarities between us and fish. It will prove how it worked.
Read the evidence of the similarities between us and fish. It will prove how it worked.

Your view is based on a lack of knowledge. So rather than do the research for you, I suggest you use Google and see how far we have got in establishing the links between the species as they evolved. For instance, we have tail bones and fetuses have gills

This is all a fallacy and has been proven wrong. We do not have gills and a tail as a developing embryo. The so called gills are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the “throat pouches” grow out. The so called tail is an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture. Its the same thing for vestigial organs that evolution uses. They are finding uses for them such as the appendix which stores beneficial bacteria in the large intestine.

These things were and are used by evolution to try and build a case for evolution. Junk DNA was another to try and show like vestigial organs that we weren't made very well and these were remnants of the evolutionary process. But now the so called Junk DNA is being found to have function. Rather than a lack of knowledge the more we look into things the more complexity and amazing design we see. The harder it is for evolution to explain how this all could have come about by chance from nothing. It is good that we investigate things and I believe science reveals God. The closer we get to discovering things like quantum physics, genetics and astrophysics the more we will see Gods creation.

This is happening now with how science is finding it difficult to explain what they are finding. Things are not calculating up with the maths and the way in which we measure things. Its not making sense and scientists are baffled. Its not so much that they just havnt found the answers yet and they will come. Its more about what sort of answer can you give for what they are finding. Thats why the attempts to explain things are moving beyond the normal parameters of our reality and into some pretty far fetched explanations that even for science.
Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dark-energy-the-biggest-mystery-in-the-universe-9482130/?c=y?no-ist
Michio Kaku - The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It

Or establish the theory of Creation, with a god like being or beings, living on Earth and constantly morphing species over and over again. Prove your theory instead of trying to knock holes in well established proof.

I think the best approach is to see it for what it is. Let the evidence reveal what is happening and not to put any constraints on it. I personally believe that there is a God and that He has something to do with the creation of life. But I dont know exactly how. But if we just allow the science to open the doors then we can see how things happen. But we will come to a point where maybe the science cant explain it. Thats where I think we should be open to other possibilities and not restrict things to a particular set of ideas.
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

 

[stevevw]

No, I showed you that you were wrong on that point. In one particular case, I even showed you that the paper you cited provided an example of convergent evolution, which was contrary to your claim that convergent evolution does not happen. In another case, I quoted from the paper to show you that the author explicitly disagreed with your view

This is the problem with the evidence. It can be argued in more than one way. The paper I used or some of them anyway didn't prove that the convergent evolution was just a coincident. I was saying that some are saying there are too many coincidences for it to all be convergent evolution. In fact from memory the author of that paper even though they were an evolutionists were stating surprise at how similar the two unrelated species were even down to large areas of the same genes.

Now that indicated that a chance mechanism has evolved down the exact same path more than once. In some cases this has happened many times and that seems a bit sus to me and many others. How does a chance process evolve almost the same things in complex detail. That points more to design then a naturalistic process which should be random and show sporadic evidence.

But there is no emphatic evidence that it is convergent evolution. It is only stated to be because the evolutionists have already built their tree of life and when two distant creatures evolve so similar they have to come up with something to explain this. Otherwise it contradicts the links made to show transitions and common decent. In fact there is evidence for design by the fact that living systems show codes and repeated processes. Evolution tries to explain this away by coming up with convergent evolution or saying that evolution favors certain things. This to me is trying to rationalize the truth away.

I'm not surprised that they came from an anti-evolution website. However, the papers you cited did not support your anti-evolution claims, which I presume also came from the same website. Why would you even trust an anti-evolution website to begin with? If you want to know about evolutionary biology, you don't go to an anti-evolution (anti-science) website.

Like I said some of the papers I use support evolution. But its the detail of how even an evolutionary scientists will find a result that can support design and then explain it away as an anomaly within evolution. Often a Christian biologist will use an evolutionary paper to show how they are providing evidence for design or evidence to cast doubt on evolution. Its just there is a disagreement in what that evidence represents. Some of the best evidence against evolution comes from evolution itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is the problem with the evidence. It can be argued in more than one way. The paper I used or some of them anyway didn't prove that the convergent evolution was just a coincident. I was saying that some are saying there are too many coincidences for it to all be convergent evolution. In fact from memory the author of that paper even though they were an evolutionists were stating surprise at how similar the two unrelated species were even down to large areas of the same genes.

No, the problem is that you don't understand how to evaluate the evidence. You are relying on anti-evolution websites and blogs to evaluate it for you, and then you are parroting their talking points here, all while pretending that there is some huge controversy in the scientific community. If you really want to understand evolutionary biology to be able to evaluate the evidence, then you should start by studying it. There are plenty of free online resources that allow you to do this. Ditch the anti-evolution blogs and find a good reputable online course.

Now that indicated that a chance mechanism has evolved down the exact same path more than once. In some cases this has happened many times and that seems a bit sus to me and many others. How does a chance process evolve almost the same things in complex detail. That points more to design then a naturalistic process which should be random and show sporadic evidence.

Interesting questions. I've offered you some answers to this in the past, and I've even linked to resources that explain it in more detail. Have a look. Inquire. Don't let anti-evolution blogs tell you what it means. Search for yourself.

Like I said some of the papers I use support evolution. But its the detail of how even an evolutionary scientists will find a result that can support design and then explain it away as an anomaly within evolution.

But it's not an anomaly. Convergent evolution is part of evolution. It's not something anomalous. There are multiple examples of it, as shown in the papers you cited.

Often a Christian biologist will use an evolutionary paper to show how they are providing evidence for design or evidence to cast doubt on evolution. Its just there is a disagreement in what that evidence represents. Some of the best evidence against evolution comes from evolution itself.

What is a "Christian biologist"? Are there "Islamic biologists," "Hindu biologists," "Mormon biologists"? No, there are just biologists.

 

[bhsmte]

No, the problem is that you don't understand how to evaluate the evidence. You are relying on anti-evolution websites and blogs to evaluate it for you, and then you are parroting their talking points here, all while pretending that there is some huge controversy in the scientific community. If you really want to understand evolutionary biology to be able to evaluate the evidence, then you should start by studying it. There are plenty of free online resources that allow you to do this. Ditch the anti-evolution blogs and find a good reputable online course.

Interesting questions. I've offered you some answers to this in the past, and I've even linked to resources that explain it in more detail. Have a look. Inquire. Don't let anti-evolution blogs tell you what it means. Search for yourself.

But it's not an anomaly. Convergent evolution is part of evolution. It's not something anomalous. There are multiple examples of it, as shown in the papers you cited.

What is a "Christian biologist"? Are there "Islamic biologists," "Hindu biologists," "Mormon biologists"? No, there are just biologists.

I agree.

Using the same old argument over and over again when it has been refuted dozens of times, kind of shows you they have nothing.

 

[pshun2404]

Yep. There are also dominant ones. And there is DNA from some of the diseases they were infected with. And surprise, surprise, the patterns seen in all of these DNA sequences is a nested hierarchy, just as evolution would predict.

Then how come they do not keep re-appearing and sometimes taking over as the 2nd law of genetics dictates and Mendel (and many others since him) has proved?

 

[xpower]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/intelligent_design/

 

[paulm50]

This is the problem with the evidence. It can be argued in more than one way. The paper I used or some of them anyway didn't prove that the convergent evolution was just a coincident. I was saying that some are saying there are too many coincidences for it to all be convergent evolution. In fact from memory the author of that paper even though they were an evolutionists were stating surprise at how similar the two unrelated species were even down to large areas of the same genes.

Now that indicated that a chance mechanism has evolved down the exact same path more than once. In some cases this has happened many times and that seems a bit sus to me and many others. How does a chance process evolve almost the same things in complex detail. That points more to design then a naturalistic process which should be random and show sporadic evidence.

But there is no emphatic evidence that it is convergent evolution. It is only stated to be because the evolutionists have already built their tree of life and when two distant creatures evolve so similar they have to come up with something to explain this. Otherwise it contradicts the links made to show transitions and common decent. In fact there is evidence for design by the fact that living systems show codes and repeated processes. Evolution tries to explain this away by coming up with convergent evolution or saying that evolution favors certain things. This to me is trying to rationalize the truth away.

Like I said some of the papers I use support evolution. But its the detail of how even an evolutionary scientists will find a result that can support design and then explain it away as an anomaly within evolution. Often a Christian biologist will use an evolutionary paper to show how they are providing evidence for design or evidence to cast doubt on evolution. Its just there is a disagreement in what that evidence represents. Some of the best evidence against evolution comes from evolution itself.

Steve, some spend a lot of time telling Evolutionists where they are wrong, presenting lots of evidence where they are wrong. Some good reasons, some laughable and some where science has corrected itself.

What the creationists never do is present evidence of where they are right.

So to all those who believe in Intelligent Design, where is your evidence?