Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Larniavc]

They have never found water on any planet outside earth as yet so I dont know where you get your info from. They have found visible traces of liquid and they have found ice but this has not been confirmed as water. Let alone water like we have on earth. The particular water that makes our snow crystals is a unique water that is only on planet earth. It is a sign of life and is only formed by the unique conditions earth finds itself in. For starters our water has oxygen and to get oxygen you have to have certain elements as well as many other exact things in place such as the size, position and age of our sun in relation to earth.

I can't believe I just read this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Besides all the rest of its features are completely formed as a modern day bat.

If you were to look at every ancestor between you and the first tetrapod that crawled out of the water, you would claim that every one of those ancestors was completely formed. It is a meaningless phrase.

So you would think that along with a gradual transition in echolocation there would be other features that also were missing or show a transition.

You would still proclaim such a species to be completely formed, so why even ask for it? We have hominid transitionals that are missing modern human features, and you still won't accept them as transitionals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but paranormal research is science, and so is the search for intelligent alien life. What does paranormal research, aliens and missing link fossils have in common? Fox Mulder.

Uh, whatever...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What part of Evolution science is theory? Don't say all of it unless you have proof.

Not sure what you mean - the theory of evolution by natural selection (modern synthesis, etc.) is a theory; and there are other related theories. The theories are part of the science of evolution. How could it all be theory, when it's under active research?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

On most people in the modern world, an appendix is useless. Otherwise we wouldn't live after removing them.

It's true we can live without them, but it doesn't mean they're useless. We can live without quite a few other useful organs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... a lifelong condition I was to be medicated for for the rest of my life, upon hearing His still small voice I was told I was healed of this, believed it and threw away these meds, and was in fact healed of it, and have not taken medication for it for decades, my PH is fine and I have never had another Kidney Stone...

That's great - but what natural law does it violate? that expectations must be satisfied? that a diagnosis is always correct? that your condition will inevitably give you kidney stones? that you can't recover or be in remission from that condition? I don't see it.

Now before the twist this is not an endorsement for people to throw away their meds...I take medications now for other issues and He has never told me to throw these away and they are wonderful scientific discoveries that keep me alive...but this is just one example...

So one of several conditions doesn't progress as expected without meds and you think God has intervened to do that? Is it always the intervention of God when people unexpectedly recover or have remissions without medication? If not, how can we tell - does the individual always get a message (e.g. a still small voice)?

 

[paulm50]

Not sure what you mean - the theory of evolution by natural selection (modern synthesis, etc.) is a theory; and there are other related theories. The theories are part of the science of evolution. How could it all be theory, when it's under active research?

A theory is something that's not proven, natural selection has been proven.

It's true we can live without them, but it doesn't mean they're useless. We can live without quite a few other useful organs.

I said on some people. I had mine out 55 years ago. No problems. Not essential either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... this discovery of a smaller middle ear bone in a bat fossil is being made into a big deal because it can give the evolution of bats a possible transitional feature. But what they dont tell you is that there are bats today that dont have echolocation anyway. So all this may be is one of them.

Yeah, maybe when they said this 52.5 million year-old bat-like creature is, "unlike any previously known", these bat experts made the silly mistake of forgetting about some modern bats just like it. It's conceivable, but it seems rather unlikely - like clutching at straws - and I don't hear the other bat experts telling them what fools they are - maybe it's a conspiracy?

Besides all the rest of its features are completely formed as a modern day bat.

Yeah - except that it's, "unlike any previously known", has a different number of claws, and unusual limb proportions...

So you would think that along with a gradual transition in echolocation there would be other features that also were missing or show a transition. The one that mostly comes to mind is the long digits the bat has for making its wings. It is said that it evolved from a creature that had normal sized digits. So we would expect to see something somewhere with the gradual progression of longer and longer digits.

Clearly, as a flying form, this fossil is later than the non-flying (gliding?) forms which would have had shorter digits, although its forearms were shorter than the later bats. As they say, "In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors." Equally clearly, there was a gap in the record that this fossil is a step towards filling - assuming that some of the undiscovered ones were fossilised and are accessible somewhere.

But there is nothing but fully formed bats that suddenly appear in the fossil records. They are much the same 50 or 60 million years ago when they first appeared as they are today.

Except that they just found this fossil that, "In many respects ... is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."

 

[bhsmte]

I can't believe I just read this.

Stick around, you will get more.

 

[stevevw]

I can't believe I just read this.

Why its true, if you can link the evidence that shows we have discovered water like ours somewhere in the universe then I will be glad to look at it and see what they mean. They say they have found traces of some liquid but not the liquid itself. They say they have found traces of some sort of liquid vapor in some atmospheres of other planets in our solar system but not any water itself. So they are assuming that there is the type of water that we have on earth somewhere in the universe but they have not directly confirmed this.

Even Wikipedia states this.
The most conclusive method for detection and confirmation of extraterrestrial liquid water is currently absorption spectroscopy. Liquid water has a distinct spectral signature to other states of water due to the state of its Hydrogen bonds. Despite the confirmation of extraterrestrial water vapor and ice, the spectral signature of liquid water is yet to be confirmed. The signatures of surface water on terrestrial planets may be undetectable through thick atmospheres across the vast distances of space using current technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_liquid_water

 

[stevevw]

Yeah - except that it's, "unlike any previously known", has a different number of claws, and unusual limb proportions...
Clearly, as a flying form, this fossil is later than the non-flying (gliding?) forms which would have had shorter digits, although its forearms were shorter than the later bats. As they say, "In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors." Equally clearly, there was a gap in the record that this fossil is a step towards filling - assuming that some of the undiscovered ones were fossilised and are accessible somewhere.
Except that they just found this fossil that, "In many respects ... is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."

This 50 million plus old bat fossil is much the same as modern bats. The main difference id the lack of a bone in the middle ear. But other bats also dont have this and are around today. So its a pretty flimsy base to use to say its a transitional. If the bats had shorter digits which would then show the progression up to the long ones needed for bat flight then those bats would either find it hard to forage for food, climb and maneuver around and well keep poking themselves in the eye. Let alone short digits would not enable flight so the feature would be rejected as a disadvantage.

 

[Larniavc]

Ice is water. It's H2O. Just like ice on Earth. Wherever H2O is it is H2O.

What 'other' form of H2O is there?

 

[Poster0]

On most people in the modern world, an appendix is useless. Otherwise we wouldn't live after removing them.

People can also live without both kidneys, or even both eyes, but they are far from useless. You have showed why evolution theory is so flawed. It doesn't actually use scientific reasoning but instead uses illogical assumptions.

 

[Poster0]

Scientific research is much like mechanical troubleshooting. A mechanic, like a scientist, will observe how an engine, and other components on an automobile, is performing. That person will then use their knowledge of various electrical and mechanical components, along with various testing procedures, in order to generate a theory for the performance of that automobile. If something is not performing correctly then that person will do repairs.

If evolution theory had my car in the garage i wouldn't need to expect that i will be getting it back anytime soon. I might just need to buy a new car instead.

 

[Larniavc]

Scientific research is much like mechanical troubleshooting

When I was doing scientific research for my MSc into the behaviour of worry I had no idea I was mechanical trouble shooting.

 

[paulm50]

People can also live without both kidneys, or even both eyes, but they are far from useless. You have showed why evolution theory is so flawed. It doesn't actually use scientific reasoning but instead uses illogical assumptions.

Just because people can live without an appendix and see no difference, that doesn't mean they can live without other organs.

You have showed why creation myth is so flawed. It doesn't actually use any reasoning but instead uses illogical assumptions.

 

[paulm50]

If evolution theory had my car in the garage i wouldn't need to expect that i will be getting it back anytime soon. I might just need to buy a new car instead.

If creation theory had my car in the garage i wouldn't need to expect that i will be getting it back. As they wait for god to fix it. I might just need to buy a new car instead.

 

[paulm50]

I can't believe I just read this.

Have we made you a believer yet?

 

[Poster0]

When I was doing scientific research for my MSc into the behaviour of worry I had no idea I was mechanical trouble shooting.

That's not what said is it? I merely said that scientific research was comparable, but not exactly the same thing. Its comparable and could easily be used as an analogy. Have you ever used an analogy? Im sure you have.

 

[Larniavc]

That's not what said is it? I merely said that scientific research was comparable, but not exactly the same thing. It comparable and could easily be used as an analogy. Have you ever used an analogy?

It is a terrible analogy.