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.
Atheists need to falsify an intelligent designer, not just refuse to consider because they do not like it.
What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.No. That simply isn't true. The eye is nor more magical or problematic for evolution than any other organ. We can see the evolution in animals and the wide variety of manifestations - from planarian eye spots, to nautiloid pinhole eyes to vertebrate eyes, all of which trace their roots back to our fishy ancestors.
Your Inner Fish – Chapters 9-10
To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.
. Darwin was a scientist and as such he didn’t posit unprovable supernatural explanations instead of evidence based natural ones. He also was originally in training at university to be a minister. Science in general excludes supernatural explanations if it’s done correctly. Adding magic to science is actually doing pseudoscience . ID is pseudoscience by the way.Nor do we need one. And I'm not a pure creationist. Christianity/Judaism's Old Testament is not a science text book, and doesn't attempt to explain things. God did it, that's good enough for me. I hold evolution as true, but we don't have it 'right' yet. Darwin tried to exclude God altogether.
OK, so you have just disproven the theory of evolution, for purposes of argument, anyway. You have demonstrated that God is incompetent to create a process based on random variation and selection (which even human engineers can do to create novel devices) to generate the diversity of life we see around us.What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.
Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.
To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.
That's not how the burden of proof works.
Otherwise, unless you can prove me wrong, I have a dragon in my garage.
Why does the Ford Focus have the same shaped steering wheel as the Model T Ford. Is this evidence that they evolved through a process of NS acting on random mutation?Why do cetaceans have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if they never had hind limbs? Why do embryonic cetaceans develop hind limb buds in utero that are absorbed back into the body when Shh/Hand2 doesn't function?
Why does the Ford Focus have the same shaped steering wheel as the Model T Ford. Is this evidence that they evolved through a process of NS acting on random mutation?
The logical principle giving us a design inference, that would lead us to say "Of course not!" does not suddenly evaporate when we look at biology.
A frame that denies existence of things beyond the natural world must necessarily deny any inference to things that may exist beyond the fence, and it's adherants must close thier minds.
What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.
Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.
To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.
I am not judging anyone on that basis. I am doing the following:You have to admit it's rather silly to judge a person on whether or not they can explain why a dolphin's tail is different than a shark's tail.
Why does the Ford Focus have the same shaped steering wheel as the Model T Ford.
Is this evidence that they evolved through a process of NS acting on random mutation?
The logical principle giving us a design inference, that would lead us to say "Of course not!" does not suddenly evaporate when we look at biology.
Common origin and development from another design supplies an adequate explanation.
Just depends on your apriori frame work. A frame that denies existence of things beyond the natural world must necessarily deny any inference to things that may exist beyond the fence, and it's adherants must close thier minds.
Actually, it seems like it could happen in only a few hundred thousand years: A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. - PubMed - NCBI
Allow me to reiterate my previous "huh?" Yes, works of art are (usually) designed. No, that does not mean the things they represent are designed. Similarly, the fact that Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" is in verse does not mean that the west wind is in iambic pentameter.This "nondesigned" piece of art will set you back $1470.00.
Perhaps Shelley knew something about the west wind that you don't. Or perhaps this argument makes no sense.Perhaps artists know something scientists don't?
Well, what we could do is calculate the observed rate of morphological change caused by natural selection as it is occurring, whether in the lab or in the wild. We could then compare that to the rate of morphological change required to explain long-term changes in the fossil record. If we did do that, we might observe that the rate required to explain the fossils is orders of magnitude lower than the observed rate in the present, and we might then conclude that natural selection actually is adequate to explain changes within the available time. In fact, if biologists were real scientists they probably would have done this decades ago.What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.
Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.
No, as admitted by a number of reputable biologists and other scientists (who are by no means Theist or ID) design is apparent, rather it is the apriori commitment to MN that obliges you to deny it. I can understand the reason for the denial but it is dishonest.But that design is present is not obvious to those of us who actually study biology for a living. That all organisms are related by common descent is simply a fact, mutation and natural selection are observed processes that are known to produce the appearance of design, and no other mechanism has been proposed. ("God wanted it that way" works even less well as a mechanism than it does as an explanation. It's also a statement that is completely consistent with common descent and adaptive evolution by random mutations and natural selection.)
But I'm a reputable biologist telling you that many other scientists disagree.No, as admitted by a number of reputable biologists and other scientists (who are by no means Theist or ID) design is apparent
Wait, are you actually saying that you understand why I'm denying something I know to be true, and that I'm being dishonest about it? If so, I'm prepared to make a number of suggestions about what you can do with your comments. If not, you'd better back away quickly.rather it is the apriori commitment to MN that obliges you to deny it. I can understand the reason for the denial but it is dishonest.
What does "a common origin" mean? It's certainly disputed that there was a common ancestral origin for all living things on Earth -- it's disputed here all the time. Anyone who disputes it, however, is ignoring a well-established scientific conclusion. Frankly, anyone who disputes it is so far removed from biological reality that their thoughts on any related topic are not worth attending to.That there is a common origin of all things is not disputed
Where is your evidence for this remarkable assertion?and neither would the the proposed mechanism of NS acting on random mutation be denied except that whenever it is tested in the real world it completely fails to display anywhere near the competence to produce the observed effect.
I'm going to have to go with "huh?" again here. What is your metric for "significant change"? How do you compare the changes in these bacteria to the changes in, say, the human lineage over the same number of generations? What's your comparison function?60 000+ generations of Ecoli, that would have taken larger forms many millions of years to get to, have produced nothing new and lead to no significant changes, and this is under experimental conditions that deliberately sought to produce evidence in favour of the ND thing.
60 000+ generations of Ecoli, that would have taken larger forms many millions of years to get to, have produced nothing new and lead to no significant changes, and this is under experimental conditions that deliberately sought to produce evidence in favour of the ND thing.
That there is a common origin of all things is not disputed, neither is the development of design overtime, and neither would the the proposed mechanism of NS acting on random mutation be denied except that whenever it is tested in the real world it completely fails to display anywhere near the competence to produce the observed effect.
That's the terrible thing about conversations - you can't control what the other person says.Does repentance or "our standing with God" explain the difference between dolphin and shark tails? I'm thinking no, so I'm wondering why it's being discussed...
I don't mean to be rude here, but there are many forums on this site where Christians can go and happily discuss repentance and what not. Forums that I, as an atheist, am not allowed to post in. This is not one of those forums.
My OP is completely sincere. I am genuinely curious how creationism/ID explains a real world feature that evolutionary theory and our knowledge of biological science does explain on a fundamental level. In a very real sense this is where the rubber meets the road. If evolution is false and creationism/ID is the Truth, then what is that explanation?
The answer given wasn't satisfactory.This has been answered since the first page.
Sharks, and marine reptiles, have a side to side movement because that's what their ancestors passed on to them.
Dolphins, and all other cetaceans, have a up and down movement because that's what they inherited from their ancestors. Sirenians as well (who, by they way, still have fingernails on their flippers inherited from toes and nailed ancestors).
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?