Things or Animals that defy creation and evolution?

[-57]

Great reply. You nailed it.

Post 97 shows why it wasn't a great reply.

 

[Caliban]

Post 97 shows why it wasn't a great reply.

No, I don’t think post 97 refutes it well at all. It makes several ascertains that are false. First, the idea of a beneficial mutation is an anachronistic way of thinking about allele changes. To call them beneficial is to merely notice the changes that produce a result that we term beneficial because it seemed to work out in a way that helped the animal. There are cave fish who have lost their eyes over time because they did not need them. The had eyes but, lost them. Are these beneficial mutations?
Blind cave fish lost eyes by unexpected evolutionary process


I see no problem with a dolphin’s eco-location developing. Every probability that involves multiple factors will have incredibly narrow odds. But, it happens—we witness it. Pull seven random cards out of a deck; that particular configuration will be an example of incredible odds. To then say it couldn’t happen because of the odds is silly. It happened. Yes the odds may be high for a deck of cards or a dolphin—but it happens.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/hear-bats-and-whales-share-sonar-protein

 

[AV1611VET]

I see no problem with a dolphin’s eco-location developing.

How's come skeptics aren't skeptical of evolution?

 

[Shemjaza]

What you have done is presented the comic book version of evolution.

We all know the change has to be changed again in the progeny in a beneficial way. Considering a trend evolves many changes are required...such as the formation of the dolphins echo-location system requires many, many beneficial mutations. Tell us, how does random mutations find the right place in the organisms DNA to occur when there are several billion places for it to occur? Then it has to be repeated over and over again until the trend is realized?

It doesn't have to happen in a particular order nor in successive members of only one lineage. Mutations occur somewhere in the population and then if they statistically confer higher odds of surviving to reproduce they will inevitably increase in frequency in the population.

 

[Caliban]

How's come skeptics aren't skeptical of evolution?

We are. We require compelling evidence. Skepticism does not mean that you don't believe something. It means that I reserve beliefs until the burden of proof has been met.

 

[-57]

No, I don’t think post 97 refutes it well at all. It makes several ascertains that are false. First, the idea of a beneficial mutation is an anachronistic way of thinking about allele changes. To call them beneficial is to merely notice the changes that produce a result that we term beneficial because it seemed to work out in a way that helped the animal. There are cave fish who have lost their eyes over time because they did not need them. The had eyes but, lost them. Are these beneficial mutations?
Blind cave fish lost eyes by unexpected evolutionary process

Your problem is evolving the eye in the first place. You have no way to explain above your cartoon version how it could have possibly happened. How each change added to a previous in the progeny of the organism. None. zilch...So stop pretending you do.

if anything the loss of the eye is a perfect example of de-evolution...where information was lost..destroyed. i do find it ironic that you would use such an example where de-evolution explains evolution.

I see no problem with a dolphin’s eco-location developing. Every probability that involves multiple factors will have incredibly narrow odds. But, it happens—we witness it. Pull seven random cards out of a deck; that particular configuration will be an example of incredible odds. To then say it couldn’t happen because of the odds is silly. It happened. Yes the odds may be high for a deck of cards or a dolphin—but it happens.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/hear-bats-and-whales-share-sonar-protein

Pulling cards from a deck is nothing like evoltionism. i really makes me laugh when evo resort to that example. It shows they "threw in their cards" Folded.

Saying somehow it beats the odds isn't science.

Just for the record sharing genes...is an example of a common creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are. We require compelling evidence. Skepticism does not mean that you don't believe something. It means that I reserve beliefs until the burden of proof has been met.

Has your burden of proof been met?

 

[Caliban]

Your problem is evolving the eye in the first place. You have no way to explain above your cartoon version how it could have possibly happened. How each change added to a previous in the progeny of the organism. None. zilch...So stop pretending you do.

if anything the loss of the eye is a perfect example of de-evolution...where information was lost..destroyed. i do find it ironic that you would use such an example where de-evolution explains evolution.




Pulling cards from a deck is nothing like evoltionism. i really makes me laugh when evo resort to that example. It shows they "threw in their cards" Folded.

Saying somehow it beats the odds isn't science.

Their is no such thing as de-evolution, there is simply changes in allele frequency over time.

I edited my post to include evidence--you can follow the links.

The card analogy relates to probability which you brought up in your post. It is precisely on topic and a proper response to your critique of the likelihood of eco location in dolphins.

 

[Caliban]

Has your burden of proof been met?

Fine, I'm not a scientist. I'm betting you are not either. Looks like you have your mind made up.

 

[Caliban]

Fine, I'm not a scientist. I'm betting you are not either. Looks like you have your mind made up.

Sorry, I think I read that wrong.

 

[Caliban]

Has your burden of proof been met?

Yes, on the issue of evolution.

 

[Yttrium]

How's come skeptics aren't skeptical of evolution?

I see no problem with a dolphin’s eco-location developing, either, but that for me, that just means that I think evolution is the most likely explanation. I always remain skeptical.

Maybe space aliens came and tinkered with the ancestors of dolphins. I'm constantly coming up with silly ideas like that, and I can't completely dismiss them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine, I'm not a scientist. I'm betting you are not either. Looks like you have your mind made up.

For the second time: Has your burden of proof been met?

And yes, I can stand behind my caption.

Can you stand behind yours?

 

[Caliban]

For the second time: Has your burden of proof been met?

And yes, I can stand behind my caption.

Can you stand behind yours?

Yours says "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE." There is no way I can take you serious after that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, on the issue of evolution.

So what are you skeptical of then?

Let me guess: gravity? string theory? UFOs? anything in the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see no problem with a dolphin’s eco-location developing, either, but that for me, that just means that I think evolution is the most likely explanation. I always remain skeptical.

Maybe space aliens came and tinkered with the ancestors of dolphins. I'm constantly coming up with silly ideas like that, and I can't completely dismiss them.

I'm sorry ... were you attempting to answer my question? or am I supposed to guess you're giving me a simple YES or NO?

 

[Caliban]

So what are you skeptical of then?

Let me guess: gravity? string theory? UFOs? anything in the Bible?

Guessing my position is a great way to have a conversation. How about this: Just ask what people are thinking before projecting your bias.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yours says "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE." There is no way I can take you serious after that.

Is it because my SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE goes beyond your skepticism and makes a value judgement?

Like you do with evolution?

In other words, you're a skeptic until it comes to evolution; then skepticism can take a hike, can't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Guessing my position is a great way to have a conversation. How about this: Just ask what people are thinking before projecting your bias.

Okay, what are you thinking?

 

[Caliban]

Is it because my SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE goes beyond your skepticism and makes a value judgement?

Like you do with evolution?

In other words, you're a skeptic until it comes to evolution; then skepticism can take a hike, can't it?

Look man, I'm not here to score points by denigrating other's point of view or trading stupid ego shots. I'm happy to discuss facts and details with you but, keep the low brow shots to yourself.