So Old Yet So Modern

[TeddyKGB]

Yes, they are. God used men to speak his words.

He might have if he existed.

That's the basis of Christianity and most other religions. They are profound words nevertheless, wouldn't you say?

No. They are supposed to make me behave by making me fear God.

The very idea that you yourself are doing exactly what those verses say?

Amazing that that author thought to condemn behavior he didn't like by presuming to speak for God.

"23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

That's macroevolution right there. An uncorruptible god into a corrupt and changing world, yes? A world with no identity but a constantly molding one as our creator.

No idea.

 

[c'mon sense]

I'm no longer creationist. I fall in and out as any person may agnostically.

Where is the observation and documentation for origin of species? And yes, that is essential to the macroevolution theory.

Where is the evidence? Darwin had none.

Darwin had plenty. We have a lot more than Darwin had. The evidence is everywhere in nature: in living animals as well as in fossils.

Since we are doing aquatic mammals, you might care to know that whales still have rudimentary pelvises and bird embrios develop teeth which are reabsorbed in later stages of their development. This does indeed provide evidence for the land origins of whales and the reptilian origins of birds, respectively.

 

[electroid]

electroid,

I'm still wondering if you have any mechanisms in mind which would prevent microevolution (which you agree exists) from becoming macroevolution (which you've left undefined but seem to disagree with). Do you?

Yes, I do. Thank you for using your head and asking relevant questions!!

Scientific studies have shown us that species can lose genetic information either through loss of genes from selective breeding, or from mutation. As a result, the new species has only a subset of previously existing characteristics. The loss of characteristics may make the new species so much inferior to the previous species that it may not be able to survive, and may become extinct. There is abundant evidence that extinction has happened to most of the species that have ever lived.
It is possible, however, that a new species will survive despite its handicap. The new species devolves from a higher life-form to a challenged life-form. Some of the species we see today may not be as capable as their ancestors were, but they are not extinct because they have learned some way to compensate. There are blind fish that live deep in the ocean. Their blindness isn't much of a handicap because there isn't much light down there anyway, so they survive.
It is easy to see how one who doesn't understand the process might think that the cumulative effects of small changes from eons of microevolution could result in macroevolution. But microevolution removes genes from the gene pool. Macroevolution requires adding new genes with special capability. You can't get more of anything by removing some of it. In the 20th century we have learned many things about genetics, thermodynamics, probability, and information theory that weren't known when Darwin developed his theory. These new discoveries give abundant evidence that lower forms of life can't evolve into higher forms. In the 19th century, Darwin could be excused for thinking that what he saw on the Galapagos Islands could explain how life appeared on Earth. Today there is no excuse.

"You can't get more of anything by removing some of it"
That's a liable claim. Yes?

 

[michabo]

"You can't get more of anything by removing some of it"
That's a liable claim. Yes?

Yet you agreed earlier that organisms had evolved (microevolved to you ) beneficial mutations. Are you retracting that claim, or would you like to retract the claim that beneficial mutations aren't possible?

 

[electroid]

Darwin had plenty. We have a lot more than Darwin had. The evidence is everywhere in nature: in living animals as well as in fossils.

Since we are doing aquatic mammals, you might care to know that whales still have rudimentary pelvises and bird embrios develop teeth which are reabsorbed in later stages of their development. This does indeed provide evidence for the land origins of whales and the reptilian origins of birds, respectively.

{

Another argument of evolutionists is that the embryos (the earliest stage of growth and development of both plants and animals) of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are very similar and thus are evidence that they evolved from a distant, common, ancestor. They claim that all have gill slits and tails in their embryos.

However, the similarities are just based on appearance. Research has shown that the "gills" in the humans are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The "tail" is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

}

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Electroid, why do you use info from creationist sources instead of peer-reviewed journals that actually have real research in them?

 

[electroid]

Yet you agreed earlier that organisms had evolved (microevolved to you ) beneficial mutations. Are you retracting that claim, or would you like to retract the claim that beneficial mutations aren't possible?

No, not evolved into an entirely separate organism as macroevolution does.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

What's your opinion on duplication errors?

EDIT oh and the apparent fusion event at human chromosome 2.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I'm no longer creationist. I fall in and out as any person may agnostically.

Where is the observation and documentation for origin of species? And yes, that is essential to the macroevolution theory.

Where is the evidence? Darwin had none.

Um, no. Darwin had tons of evidence for evolution by natural selection; that's pretty much everything he had. What he didn't have was a mechanism to produce phenotypic variation. We, of course, have that now.

 

[michabo]

No, not evolved into an entirely separate organism as macroevolution does.

Why? What's stopping this process?

 

[TeddyKGB]

No, not evolved into an entirely separate organism as macroevolution does.

As "entirely separate organism" is not in any way a scientific concept, your argument has no basis.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

No, not evolved into an entirely separate organism as macroevolution does.

oh your talking about the creationist strawman macroevolution event... Fish into frogs in one generation type stuff, the ToE doesnt claim this and if it did happen it would falsify evolution.

 

[c'mon sense]

No, not evolved into an entirely separate organism as macroevolution does.

1. What is to you an entirely separate organism? Is a finch and a swallow an entireley separate species? Why? Why not?

2. From your point of view, if a horse gave birth to a bird, would that be "evolution proven" to you?

3. Why would a bird embryo grow teeth at some point in its development and later "change its mind"?

4. Why would a useless pelvis with no femur bones attached to it still have the sockets where the bones would normally go?

 

[electroid]

The Plausibility of Life—Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma by evolutionists Kirschner and Gerhart

If genetic change were random, what could ensure that enough favorable phenotype variation had taken place for selection to have produced the exquisite adaptations we see on earth today? At various times, biologists have thought that genetic change must be directed in some way to produce enough of the appropriate kinds of phenotypic variation. 6

This is a very touchy subject for evolutionists. Deep down in their hearts, they know that random processes won’t get the job done for them. There are many more ways to miss a bull’s-eye than to hit it. If you point a gun randomly, without aiming it, you are most likely to miss. For a series of random changes to produce a functional structure, all the random changes have to hit the target. Any miss will cause the whole structure to malfunction. So, they recognize that whatever process causes the change must be biased toward the end result.
But evolutionists are generally adamant that evolution has no goal in mind. It is a purposeless, undirected process. Some evolutionists even bristle at phrases such as “more advanced creatures” or “higher forms of life” because these phrases imply progress toward some goal. If something is directing evolution toward a goal, it is just too close to theistic evolution for comfort. If undirected, impersonal, random natural processes can’t do the job, then there must be some sort of god behind the scenes directing the process. That’s simply unacceptable.
That’s why evolutionists keep vacillating. Random processes aren’t sufficient, so they have to lean toward some sort of directing force, but the idea of a directing force is so close to Christianity that they must flee from it. What is an evolutionist to do?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The Plausibility of Life—Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma by evolutionists Kirschner and Gerhart

If genetic change were random, what could ensure that enough favorable phenotype variation had taken place for selection to have produced the exquisite adaptations we see on earth today? At various times, biologists have thought that genetic change must be directed in some way to produce enough of the appropriate kinds of phenotypic variation. 6

If intelligent design is a sniper, evolution is a bluderbuss.

 

[electroid]

Organisms adapt to their environment, but that's what comes into play here. Adaption not Darwinism.

Darwin then extrapolated this truth into non-truth. He believed that these gradual changes could continue without limit, resulting in changes so large that entirely new species would evolve.

We agree that "repetition of this idea [that life could have been caused by a "spark in the soup"] as fact, without sufficient evidence, has done a disservice to new generations by capping their curiosity about a profound and open question." In fact, we would extend this statement to say that the repetition of the idea that evolution is a fact, without sufficient evidence, has done a disservice to the advancement of science in general. It has prejudiced the reconstruction of fossils and the interpretation of geology and astronomy. Science will truly advance when we discard the theory of evolution and examine data without evolutionary prejudice.

I don't agree that species evolve or "adapt", we'll say, into a completely different species over millions of years because of the proof it lacks in assuming that that's how it happened rather than examining it from the perspective of someone or a society who's lived for that amount of time.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Organisms adapt to their environment, but that's what comes into play here. Adaption not Darwinism.

"Darwin then extrapolated this truth into non-truth. He believed that these gradual changes could continue without limit, resulting in changes so large that entirely new species would evolve."

I just found out I'm not alone and I found some great links to atheistic anti-evolution.

I'm a happy kiddo now.


I don't agree that species evolve or "adapt", we'll say, into a completely different species over millions of years because of the proof it lacks in assuming that that's how it happened rather than examining it from the perspective of someone or a society who's lived for that amount of time.

Link?

 

[c'mon sense]

The Plausibility of Life—Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma by evolutionists Kirschner and Gerhart

If genetic change were random, what could ensure that enough favorable phenotype variation had taken place for selection to have produced the exquisite adaptations we see on earth today?

The answer is in the question: natural selection would ensure that only fit genetic variants would make it into the next generation and so on. It is cumulative.

At various times, biologists have thought that genetic change must be directed in some way to produce enough of the appropriate kinds of phenotypic variation. 6

And they were wrong.

 

[TeddyKGB]

{Another argument of evolutionists is that the embryos (the earliest stage of growth and development of both plants and animals) of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are very similar and thus are evidence that they evolved from a distant, common, ancestor. They claim that all have gill slits and tails in their embryos.

However, the similarities are just based on appearance. Research has shown that the "gills" in the humans are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The "tail" is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.}

Early embryos do have gill slits. That they eventually form other structures does not negate their obvious homologousness.

The embryonic tail is in fact not the backbone, but a tail that, in most cases, is removed by apoptosis. In a very few cases apoptosis does not occur, and the infant is born with a tail, known as an atavism.

The human embryo also has a notochord, which is likewise reabsorbed (save for a few bits of vertebral disc) in development.

 

[danaman5]

Quote:
This is a very touchy subject for evolutionists. Deep down in their hearts, they know that random processes won’t get the job done for them. There are many more ways to miss a bull’s-eye than to hit it. If you point a gun randomly, without aiming it, you are most likely to miss. For a series of random changes to produce a functional structure, all the random changes have to hit the target. Any miss will cause the whole structure to malfunction. So, they recognize that whatever process causes the change must be biased toward the end result.
But evolutionists are generally adamant that evolution has no goal in mind. It is a purposeless, undirected process. Some evolutionists even bristle at phrases such as “more advanced creatures” or “higher forms of life” because these phrases imply progress toward some goal. If something is directing evolution toward a goal, it is just too close to theistic evolution for comfort. If undirected, impersonal, random natural processes can’t do the job, then there must be some sort of god behind the scenes directing the process. That’s simply unacceptable.
That’s why evolutionists keep vacillating. Random processes aren’t sufficient, so they have to lean toward some sort of directing force, but the idea of a directing force is so close to Christianity that they must flee from it. What is an evolutionist to do?

You are misunderstanding this quote. It is not a denial of God or anything, but rather a statement of the fact that evolution can only work with the environment that it has. In other words, a bird can't say "well, my environment may be destroyed by loggers at some point in the future, so I had better adapt now to prepare".