- Feb 27, 2019
- 70
- 11
- Country
- Croatia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Many people fail to understand that although evolution, i.e. process of evolution, is a fact, this process is totally powerless in creating higher life forms, as required by the theory of evolution. Higher life forms are characterized by novel proteins, organs, molecular machines, and body plans, that were nonexistent in the lower life forms, such as first self-replicating cells. The theory of evolution holds that the above mentioned process was able to repeatedly produce such novelty in a short period of time. Namely, according to the theory, at the beginning of the Cambrian period, in an interval of 20 million years or less, the process of evolution resulted in the explosion of animal diversity with multiple feats of anatomical and physiological novelty. In an evolutionary blink of an eye, most major animal phyla were fully developed. Recently, the "big bang" of bird evolution has been mapped, revealing that almost all of the modern groups of birds appeared in a small window of less than 10 million years. So evolution must have happened extremely fast and produced novelty in a short period of time. Finally, based on 53-million-year-old fossils of whale-like, semi-aquatic mammals, scientists had thought mammals gave rise to whales in a process that took 15 million years. The new find suggests it took just 4 million years. So again, in an evolutionary blink of an eye the evolution process must have produced a lot of novelty to turn a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic marine mammal.
However, the observation clearly shows the complete powerlessness of this process. For e.g. in the last 300,000 years, the variation part of the evolution process produced more than 100 billion different Homo sapiens genomes. But has this enormous diversity caused humans to start to develop some new, distinct organs, molecular machines, or body plans that will occupy ecological niches humans previously could not occupy, i.e. enable the selection part of the evolution process to act on them? Well, obviously not. After an enormous number of different genomes produced, humans are anatomically, morphologically and physiologically practically identical, without any traces of new structures starting to develop. The same is true for the E.coli long-term evolution experiment, which is the longest running microbial evolution experiment. After more than 67,000 generations of E. coli, which is the equivalent to over one million years of human evolution, not a single, new and distinct structure was created. Most of the changes involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression, with one change being the breaking of a repressor switch which caused preexisting citrate-uptake pathway to turn on. So, both humans and E.coli have undergone a lot of evolution, but nothing structurally new was created. This clearly shows that the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the validity of the evolution theory. The evolution process is indeed factual the same as other natural processes, be it: fog, thunder, tornadoes, decomposition, wave propagation, erosion, etc. But natural processes, including evolution, are totally powerless in creating new functional things. Many educated people fail to differentiate between evolution process (fact) and evolution theory (human idea about what the evolution process can and cannot do), which is why they hold irrational beliefs about the enormous creation powers of a mere natural process that is in reality totally powerless.
As they say:Just watched a show on horses. It seems that they each have their own unique personality...evolution I guess. Some even prefer human company over other horses. There must be some kind of evolutionary link there as many people prefer the company of animals.
Of course there is. Zebras cannot be domesticated like horses no matter how young you get them.Just watched a show on horses. It seems that they each have their own unique personality...evolution I guess. Some even prefer human company over other horses. There must be some kind of evolutionary link there as many people prefer the company of animals.
- Light hollow bones ordered properly for flight to take place.
- Metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest, while Birds the fastest metabolism.
- Lung Structure. Terrestrial lungs have a two-directional flow structure. In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The structure of the lung in birds, and the functioning of the respiratory system are unique.
- Physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature.
- Feathers. From gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization, every feature is different in feathers and scales. Also the protein structure of bird feathers is unique among vertebrates.
- Regulatory and control genes. Feathers are useless for flying unless the wing, tail and other parts of the bird are properly arranged on the bird, which requiers novel regulatory and control genes.
- Hip Structure. All dinosaurs fall into one of two major groups: A) "lizard-hipped" - their pubis bone is typically swept forward, B) "bird-hipped" - where the pubis juts backwards to join another bone called the ischium. However, birds are more closely related to the "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, and would have to independently evolve the pubis bone facing backwards.
- Birds have a wishbone that includes a kneeled sternum bone, which is where the muscles attach to that are critical for flight.
-Etc.
Complexity is a mathematical concept. Any argument from complexity which does not have math backing it up is just an argument from incredulity.because its too complex.
Complexity is a mathematical concept. Any argument from complexity which does not have math backing it up is just an argument from incredulity.
have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.But there is nothing in a bird's wing which is not present in the forelimb of the reptile from which the bird's wing evolved--the same bones, muscles, veins and arteries, etc. Only the relative shapes and proportions of these components are different. What is "too complex" about that?
have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.
can you calculate the chance for a non-living watch to evolve by a natural process?
please read again what i said and to what question.After all this time, do you still not know the difference between living and non-living things? Do you still not understand that biological evolution only happens to living populations?
How do you still not know any of this?
because even young-Earth creationists are waking up to the idea that there were feathered dinosaurs
please read again what i said and to what question.
so what? its stilll a new traits that suppose to evolve from non feather. anyway a hand isnt a wing. unless you are able to fly.
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?