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.
I don't think you understand what complexity is.
Why is there no scientific theory of creation then?
I accept the standard definitions.
You tell me. There's plenty of evidence.
What is that definition then? How does one measure the complexity of biological organisms?
Incredulity and other emotional arguments are not evidence.
Revisit that post. I edited it.
Not to add anything meaningful.
Again, my questions:
What is the definition of complexity? How does one measure the complexity of biological organisms? How does one determine whether evolution is capable of producing such complexity or not?
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 preexi sting 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.
Can you answer those questions?
Is there a 'scale' of complexity somewhere? Is a person's brain a little, somewhat, or mostly, complex?
The fact that nothing sustains life with out eroding evolution can't be right because at what point did evolution decide it was going to stop revolving and start to decay? Everything left to it's self decays, bread gets moldy, flowers die, man's outward perishes etc. Therefore the evolution theory has no foundation.
Science is the study of creation. This will dawn on scientists at some point.
Yes there is. Apparently it makes your head hurt.Can you answer those questions?
Is there a 'scale' of complexity somewhere? Is a person's brain a little, somewhat, or mostly, complex?
I weep for the US's educational system.The fact that nothing sustains life with out eroding evolution can't be right because at what point did evolution decide it was going to stop revolving and start to decay? Everything left to it's self decays, bread gets moldy, flowers die, man's outward perishes etc. Therefore the evolution theory has no foundation.
Death enables evolution. Without death the sequence of generations, each subtly different from the preceding, would not be possible.The fact that nothing sustains life with out eroding evolution can't be right because at what point did evolution decide it was going to stop revolving and start to decay? Everything left to it's self decays, bread gets moldy, flowers die, man's outward perishes etc. Therefore the evolution theory has no foundation.
I'm not the one making the claim that life is too complex to have evolved.
If you want to make these claims, do some homework and have something to back it up. Otherwise it's a meaningless claim, which is why you shouldn't wonder why biologists don't agree with you.
You do know that those who believe in evolution did so before they ever cracked a science book. No biology book ever 'convinced' anyone of evolution. They believed it the first time they heard of it, with joy and tear-filled eyes.
I've pointed out to you before the distinction between belief and acceptance. (You keep forgetting it, but I'm here to remind you.) I cannot speak for others but this was pretty much the sequence for me:You do know that those who believe in evolution did so before they ever cracked a science book. No biology book ever 'convinced' anyone of evolution. They believed it the first time they heard of it, with joy and tear-filled eyes.
What did I tell you about drinking and posting?
I'm sure belief is very comforting, but I don't think it is appropriate for serious minded people who wish to deal with reality.
My OP equates nothing, it just compares empirical and theoretical creation powers of evolution. Cambrian explosion is not orders of magnitude larger than human evolution. 13 million years of evolution in early Cambrian divided by 300,000 years of human evolution gives 43. Hence, this in not even one order of magnitude larger, but only 43/1000 = 0.043. If we take into account that human population is larger, maybe even more than 0.0043 orders of magnitude than some Cambrian population that supposedly evolved new anatomical and physiological structures, my comparison is pretty spot on. This is even more obvious in the context of the hypothetical evolution of whales, where in the time span of just 4 million years, a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep had to be transformed into a fully aquatic mammal the size of a whale. So, according to the theory, in a time period that is only 10 times longer than human evolution, the process of evolution resulted in multiple anatomical and physiological novelty, which enabeled the occupation of many new(aquatic) niches. Here are just a few examples of novelty:
-Emergence of blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
-Emergence of ball vertebrae
-Modification of the eye for underwater vision
-Ability to drink sea water
-Forelimbs transformed into flippers
-Modification of the teeth
-Reduction of hind limbs
-Reduction of pelvis and sacral vertebrae
-Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs
-Changes to hydrodynamic properties of the skin
-Change in birthing process where fetus is delivered in breech position (for labor underwater)
-Ability to nurse young underwater
-Decoupling of esophagus and trachea
-Origin of tail flukes and musculature
-Origin of blubber for temperature insulation
-....
So theoretically, evolution is extremely powerful. Empirically, evolution is utterly powerless. With that said, you can either accept empirical facts of you can keep inventing excuses for the theory.
It is really funny how you evolutionists have the tendencies to repeat the same nonsense phrases over and over again without critically examining them. "Evolution does not start from scratch, it is modifying what is already there" is one such nonsense phrase.
Now, tell me something: what natural process doesn't modify what is already there? Thunder, tornadoes, erosion... all these processes modify what is already there. When a stone drops to the ground it modifies what is already there. When a bullet hits a car it modifies what is already there. When one introduces a random change to the text, he modifies what is already there. In the same way, evolution modifies what is already there. What else would be modified if not what is already there?! But what that has to do with creating new functional things? Absolutely nothing. So, these nonsense phrases that you evolutionists repeat like mantra, are just your way to find excuses for keeping your faith in the theory that contradicts every aspect of reality.
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?