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.
so the whole thread isnt about evidence for evolution? fine.
its also true for evolution. evolution cant explain how a complex organ can evolve. so evolution is false because of that?
2) if the design can explain the whale tail then its not a problem for the design scenario to begin with.
3) evolution cant explain how the whale tail evolved at the first place.
4) some shark genes are colser to human than to other species of fishes. so according to your criteria (similar unique traits among whales and land mammals are evidence for a common descent) we need to believe that sharks are more similar to human than to some other fishes.
so the whole thread isnt about evidence for evolution? fine.
This is completely untrue. Evolution can and does explain it. It uses the observed mechanisms as support for that explanation. We can enumerate the genetic differences. We can perform experiments on living organisms and observe the changes that occur during development related to those genetics. We can compare them against each other and against completely different organisms and draw further conclusions. etc. What mechanisms can creation/ID point to to support the conclusion of design of biological systems other than it being observed to perform a function and concluding that it was designed by some unknown/unknowable agent using some unknown/unknowable mechanism to perform that function?
No, but some individual genes (if what you're saying is even true, of which I am uncertain without a source for your claim, but it wouldn't be a surprise either way) may be conserved better between more distantly related species than more closely related ones for reasons that can be deduced and are understood. When you look at individual genes you can have seemingly disparate lineages due, again, to known mechanisms like incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Evolutionary theory encompasses these things. What does creation/ID have to say about them?
I mean, if I observe some feature of, say, a watch, that I don't understand I can take it apart and try and come up with an explanation
Both are possible, both can be true simultaneously. But unless there is evidence of intelligent manufacture, no conclusion about intelligent design can be reached.lets test this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?
see? when it doesnt fit with the hierarchy evolution can explain it by many explanations. the problem is that we can explain anything by this way, so we cant realy test evolution.
its a ctually a good point. say that we will find a very complex machine (say an alien spaceship) that contain many parts. and we dont fully understand what some parts do or why they designed in such a way. what will be the best scientific conclusion in this case?:
1) the spaceship just evolved by a natural process.
2) someone designed this spaceship.
what do you think will be the best explanation in this case?
Actually, people drink regular water all the time and live off the land, too. Of course, with Costco giving us good produce year around, I can see where you're coming from.Food which involves modern agriculture, which is again a dependency on biology.
Ditto with water when you consider purification and risks posed by biological contaminants.
You can't escape the dependency on biology and our understanding thereof.
Or come up with a good guess.Humans are naturally curious. If your postulated God created humans then he created them with the curiosity to ask why and the intellect to find out.
or an educated guess.Moreover, the OP was not asking for an explanation for everything, but for one very specific thing. Science has an explanation for it already.
I guess that depends on the human.The OP was curious to know what a creationist explanation would be. What has emerged thus far is that the explanation is "that's just the way it is". That, to an intellectually curious human, is not a satisfying response.
species come, species go, with or without human action. That's just the way it is.He has not done much (anything) yet to stop the extinction, as a consequence of human action, of thousands of species of flora and fauna.
Stewardship is one thing, and yes, we ARE called to be good stewards. But I don't see nihilistic slaughter, unless you're talking about people who kill sharks for their fins or elephants for their tusks, or who shoot animals just to hang their fur on their wall. Killing animals for food and cover is perfectly what they're there for. But that doesn't mean we're destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels. And this ISN'T a 2nd version of the garden of Eden.Has it occurred to you that he might just expect better stewardship from his creations than the wholesale, nihilistic slaughter we are currently engaged in? According to your beliefs we already got kicked out of one Garden of Eden. Is it really wise to be messing up the 2nd Version we find ourselves in?
Isn't "I don't know or care" acceptable?Then why are they different?
Excuse me. IT's real enough for me. That's what matters to me.But that is not a real explanation.
The only picture that I see emerging at this point in time lies in the apraisal of design.So what do you think of what Wagner views as the emerging picture of how evolutionary novelties do appear?
lets check this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?
The theory of evolution has nothing to say about theism, and given the number of theists who accept it, it is not a barrier to theism, nothing for anti-theists to hide behind. As a general rule, those who whine that scientists clinging to "Darwinism" out of fear of theism know little about either and are only trying to protect their particular literalist interpretation of scripture.The only picture that I see emerging at this point in time lies in the apraisal of design.
Reading Thomas Nagel's book was interesting in this regard. Although an Atheist he writes a book titled: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, and a number of times through the book he has to make it clear that he is not taking up theism, and he has to because the only real alternative at this point appears to be theistic.
Certainly the Darwinian view is missing in some very fundamental respects and clearly there is something else going on. But that something else will never be revealed as long as as reasearchers are obligated to cling to Darwinism and Naturalism as ideaologies out of a fear of Theism.
It doesn't supply the answer to the question "why?" either. It only shows me a supposed series of accidents that turned out to have selective advantage.
There is no goal or purpose in any of it, my inquisitive son would not be satisfied with such an answer.
1. Science does not do guesswork. It produces rigorously tested and validated explanations, that offer the best explanation for the available evidence.Or come up with a good guess.or an educated guess.I guess that depends on the human.species come, species go, with or without human action. That's just the way it is.
Stewardship is one thing, and yes, we ARE called to be good stewards. But I don't see nihilistic slaughter, unless you're talking about people who kill sharks for their fins or elephants for their tusks, or who shoot animals just to hang their fur on their wall. Killing animals for food and cover is perfectly what they're there for. But that doesn't mean we're destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels. And this ISN'T a 2nd version of the garden of Eden.
Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. - Richard DawkinsThe theory of evolution has nothing to say about theism, and given the number of theists who accept it, it is not a barrier to theism, nothing for anti-theists to hide behind. As a general rule, those who whine that scientists cling to "Darwinism" out of fear of theism know little about either and are only trying to protect their particular literalist interpretation of scripture.
Killer whales are consummate predators.I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the shark is a consummate predator, if it has something to do with how the two species had to maneuver.
I accept that there is a common origin, and I recognise what may have been a development of one from the other in some respect (although not necessarily so).Do you accept that dolphins evolved from terrestrial mammals?
lets check this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?
see? when it doesnt fit with the hierarchy evolution can explain it by many explanations. the problem is that we can explain anything by this way, so we cant realy test evolution.
its a ctually a good point. say that we will find a very complex machine (say an alien spaceship) that contain many parts. and we dont fully understand what some parts do or why they designed in such a way. what will be the best scientific conclusion in this case?:
1) the spaceship just evolved by a natural process.
2) someone designed this spaceship.
what do you think will be the best explanation in this case?
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?