The Skunk and the Trunk: How Do Random Mutations Account for Complexity?

[Split Rock]

What does that mean? If you believe in evolution, then at some point in time you DID have a fish turning into a mammal, etc. Populations include individuals.

Not only do we not see this in nature, but the fossil record simply doesn't bear this theory out.

You cannot watch a fish turn into a mammal! This is not evolution. How many times do you need to read this?

We can observe speciation as it occurs to populations. As species evolve and speciation occurs over long periods of time, new higher taxonomic levels (such as genus, family, class) may evolve as well. But you cannot have a new class evolve directly from an existing class. Speciation is what we can observe in real time.

As far as explaining the fossil record is concerned, this is an area where YECs fail miserably.

 

[Loudmouth]

The skunk is a rather stinky animal when he wants to be.

As are the rest of the weasel species. Skunks just happen to be the smelliest. Ever smell a ferret before they have their anal glands removed? Pepe LePeu comes to mind.

The skunk has a gland that, when activated through fear or defense, emits a foul odor over a several-mile area.

Not much unlike the musk glands found in other weasels. Other weasels just happen to use them during mating and marking territory. Not much of an advance to make the musk stinkier and fire off when threatened.

Why isn't that stinky gland located in the skunk's kindney, or on his tongue?

Common ancestory with other weasels makes the musk producing anal glands a much simpler solution.

Now look at the trunk of the elephant. Elephants use their long, muscular trunks for a number of tasks. Not only do they use their trunks for gathering food, but they also use them to move (and remove) objects. I was amazed that after the recent Tsunamis in Indonesia, elephants were called in to help clean up the rubble and search for people. Elephants can even uproot trees with those trunks! It truly is a specialized wonder of complexity.

Perhaps you can answer this question. Why can't evolution produce complexity? Please be specific.

I say it could only be explained by an intelligent designer, namely, God, who fashioned life from His own hand.

How did you rule out Leprechauns?

 

[SackLunch]

As are the rest of the weasel species. Skunks just happen to be the smelliest. Ever smell a ferret before they have their anal glands removed? Pepe LePeu comes to mind.

Not much unlike the musk glands found in other weasels. Other weasels just happen to use them during mating and marking territory. Not much of an advance to make the musk stinkier and fire off when threatened.

Common ancestory with other weasels makes the musk producing anal glands a much simpler solution.

Perhaps you can answer this question. Why can't evolution produce complexity? Please be specific.

How did you rule out Leprechauns?

Leprechans don't exist. God does.

My point is this. What is the scientific evidence that explains how, by chance as the evolution belief says, these complex systems such as the trunk and the stink glands of the skunk developed to perform specific functions and were placed in the perfect locations on the body?

I want scientific evidence here, people.

 

[AirPo]

Leprechans don't exist. God does.

My point is this. What is the scientific evidence that explains how, by chance as the evolution belief says, these complex systems such as the trunk and the stink glands of the skunk developed to perform specific functions and were placed in the perfect locations on the body?

I want scientific evidence here, people.

Natural selection is not by chance.

 

[SackLunch]

thus far nobody has given me any answers. Oh well! It proves my point though that evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the truth that God created the universe and mankind directly.

Is the evolutionary faith dead? Why can't I get a simple question answered?

 

[Ryal Kane]

thus far nobody has given me any answers. Oh well! It proves my point though that evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the truth that God created the universe and mankind directly.

Is the evolutionary faith dead? Why can't I get a simple question answered?

The answer is, "They don't."
Because you presented a false version of evolution. You presented a straw man. You have been told this many, many times but you just kept clinging to your definition.
If I define Christianity as the worship of Flaying Purple Pumpkins, I can easily say how foolish it is.
But that definition of Christianity is wrong, just like your definition of Evolution is wrong.

Stop spamming threads and stop lying.
From what I understadn, it's frowned upon in your religion.

 

[AirPo]

thus far nobody has given me any answers.

What about posts # 4, 5, 40, and 48?

Oh well! It proves my point though that evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the truth that God created the universe and mankind directly.

Your point has nothing to do with evolution.

Is the evolutionary faith dead?

It was never alive in the first place.

Why can't I get a simple question answered?

You can and you have.

 

[tcampen]

It's called a presupposition. My presupposition is that God exists, and He created the heavens, the earth, and the human race directly, without using evolution as a "tool." This is the basis for my beliefs.

This illustrates the difference between relying on theology to explain something about nature, and relying on science to explain something about nature. The theological explanation for the diversity of life starts with the answer, then seeks facts to support it. The scientific answer starts with the facts, which objectively provides the explanation. The so-called use of "presuppositions" is totally different in this regard. It is in the methodology, not simply a starting point of otherwise equal "presuppositions," implying "whatever you want to believe."

In fact, this is the belief of many people of faith throughout the world. So are you condemning over half the world for not believing in evolution? Are all these people just backwards ignoramuses? Or is it too much to ask that one respects another's beliefs?

The relative number of people who might think something to be true is not an argument for its veracity. This is a classic logical fallacy.

As for respecting one's beliefs, that's another thing. But one must recognize the distinct difference between personal spiritual beliefs, and objective science.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

and were placed in the perfect locations on the body?

You actually answered your own question in an earlier post.

If a skunks glands were placed in the "perfect" location, then why are the in the hindquarters requiring a blind shot instead of somewhere around the face where they could be coordinated with the vision?

Can you explain how this is a "perfect location"?

Or you could actually read Loudmouths explanation of the relational and functional aspects of the skunk's glands to other weasels musk glands.

Design? I think not.

 

[Split Rock]

Leprechans don't exist. God does.

Prove it!

My point is this. What is the scientific evidence that explains how, by chance as the evolution belief says, these complex systems such as the trunk and the stink glands of the skunk developed to perform specific functions and were placed in the perfect locations on the body?

What is this "evolution belief" that claims such organs developed "by chance?"

I want scientific evidence here, people.

No you don't. You want to be reassured that your weak faith is really rock solid. Sorry... it is weak.

 

[Loudmouth]

Leprechans don't exist. God does.

I disbelieve in God for the same reasons you disbelieve in Leprechauns. But then again, we are talking about science which doesn't include the supernatural.

My point is this. What is the scientific evidence that explains how, by chance as the evolution belief says, these complex systems such as the trunk and the stink glands of the skunk developed to perform specific functions and were placed in the perfect locations on the body?

I want scientific evidence here, people.

Natural selection will propagate mutations that increase complexity while weeding out mutations that reduce it. Quite simple, really.

 

[Caphi]

Natural selection will propagate mutations that increase complexity while weeding out mutations that reduce it. Quite simple, really.

Only if complexity is a reproductive advantage. Natural selection may propagate simplicity if complexity proves to be an energetic burden and simplicity is more efficient.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Just like Mark Ramsey and the rest of your ilk. You cherry pick the posts you respond to and try to steer the debate in a new direction once you are backed into a corner and are wrong about something. You have been asked a number of direct and simple questions that you fail to reply to. How do you expect to be taken seriously in this venue if you can’t even address and defend your own threads Sack? Why do you wonder why you seem to get so many personal attacks? How about you sit still and answer for your threads and posts before wandering off and starting new threads to distract everyone from your miserable failure to defend your last one?