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.
the same with the missing chromosomes "prediction".
so this motor isn't evidence for design:
Mini Kaze 60mm Quiet Fan
The vestigial centromere and telomeres were not known when the fusion was proposed, so yes, they really were a prediction.the same with the missing chromosomes "prediction".
If you find one of those in a cell, we'll have something to talk about.so this motor isn't evidence for design:
thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:
Bacterial Flagellum
so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.
Non sequitur.so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.
Yes, using machinery of known human manufacture, using quite different techniques.humans also makes artificial proteins or genes (organic components). so again: the same conclusion.
the evidence is the motor itself. and as you can see- we need to conclude design even by your own critieria.
No, no. The correct conclusion is that stars are designed. Similarly, humans make artificial soil, and this implies that dirt is designed.If I 'define' parts of a star such that is 'resembles' a furnace, can I conclude that because humans make furnaces that stars are human contrivances, too?
NO. You have entirely missed what convergent evolution is. The structures LOOK the same, but physically are DISTINCT. An organism that is a mammal and an organism THAT LOOKS LIKE A MAMMAL could evolve independently, but since being a mammal is more than just outward appearance or similar niche, two separate mammalian lineages COULD NOT arise independently.i never said you said it. and if s everal traits can evolved by convergent evolution then a mammal traits can evolve twice.
Nope, because you consistently seem to not understand that convergent evolution doesn't result in identical structures.and therefore evolution can explain a 300my mammal fossil by convergent evolution too.
Yes still an assumption. We assume that chimps and humans are related and that we came from a common ancestor. It's assumed that the commonality of the coding sequences mean we came from a common ancestor. It's still an assumption.
Earlier you posted this: "Saved by science is your descriptor.
As a general comment not personally directed to you. I like to have a go at interpreting it like....
Saved by chance maybe in case of Evolution Theory?
It may also be saved by Chaos, if that makes sense at all!"
I told you I did not understand what you were trying to say. After two or three requests you finally came up with the lengthy post featured at the top of this one. It appears to be a rephrasing of your basic argument.
I was not asking for a rephrasing of your basic argument. I was asking what the short four line post above meant. Restating your basis argument does not achieve that end.
I have no idea why you introduce, apparently our of nowhere and with no apparent connection to your basic argument the statement "Saved by science is your descriptor."
I don't understand what that statement means. I can make some guesses and none of them appeare relevant to the discussion we are having in this thread.
The subsequent three lines do nothing to clarify your intent.
Conspiracy?
I think not.
The advocates of a 'Single Intelligencia' could do their camp a big favor and actually provide a real, legitimate, corroborated, verifiable bit of evidence that would compel skeptics to accept their version of reality, rather than hiding behind excess verbiage, unwarranted condescension, and bible verses.
Perfect example of dismissal. Intelligent design movement therefore it can be summarily dismissed. It's where evolution fails again. Anything that counters current thought is just waved away. This despite the fact that there is obvious problems with evolution that is pointed out. Evolutionists have a lock on the teaching and anything that counters the thought is waved off as not science. Despite the fact that evolution isn't real science either since it can't be observed tested or reproduced.
Evolution Theory is part of a non deity based religion
No, it's part of the science of Biology. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's the science that deals with living things.
Let us take the butterfly, how it starts off as and to where it ends, as a beautiful butterfly. By rights, we should call this process Evolution, but is it? What do the Evolutionist call it?
In fact we observe in nature that species sprung up simultaneously and all species stayed within their gene pool and never cross lapped. There was no half zebra half lion, or half fish half man. Rather the processes occurred simultaneousky and exhibited adaptation over time.
The tapestry of life is so closely interconnected like the engineering equation, that there are baseline algorithms that rule out chaotic process, leading to the chancing of life emerging. It cannot be rationally conceived that all these connection happening through a single path, that is rock, whale and so forth as Evolutionists dogmatically hold to.
If you're talking about the process of going from a caterpillar to a butterfly, there is a term for that. It's called Metamorphosis - Wikipedia.
There is no such thing as a "half zebra half lion" or "half fish half man" because that's not how biological evolution works. There certainly are transitional examples out there, but given that the gap separating humans and fish evolution is 500 million years or so, finding a half-and-half would be a more an indication of a freakish genetic experiment than natural evolution.
I'd suggest taking some time to learn more about biological evolution and maybe biology in general, if you intend to keep discussing it on forums. Here is a good site to start learning some basics: Welcome to Evolution 101!
If there are people that believe there is some sort of intelligent, creative force that shaped the universe, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution stands on its own as a foundational part of modern biology.
In fact, that is what we do see. There are countless extinct--failed--species. There is a wide diversity of life, many different pathways taken leading to ithat diversity.In fact if we had millions of years of misses we should see failed life forms and different pathways taken. We don't and so the onus falls back on the Evolutionists to show where these failed pathways exist scientifically, and I mean quantiitvely and qualatively.
In fact, that is what we do see. There are countless extinct--failed--species. There is a wide diversity of life, many different pathways taken leading to ithat diversity.
Not extinct species? Don't you believe in species?Not extinct species, rather exitinct adaptation of the same kind, therefore same species. This is where Evolutionists use the term evolution in place of adaptation. It is a failed adaptation, therefore no evidence for evolution.
I'm sorry, but you have just proven the point I made earlier. Thanks.
Not extinct species? Don't you believe in species?
As to "kinds," There is no biological or genetic evidence that they exist as a barrier to "adaptation" as you call it. Moreover, there is no scriptural evidence whatever that by "kinds" the author of Genesis 1 meant to describe any such immutable divine taxonomy.
So speciation is "evolution" then? No problem; speciation has been abserved both in the lab and in the field.Within species it is adaptation, not evolution.
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?