Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[xianghua]

No, they can't.

I don't know in what kind of universe you live, but over here in this one, cars don't reproduce.

its a theoretical situation if you didnt got it.

 

[xianghua]

There is no such thing.

so what? its a theoretical question. we can ask what if we will have a self replicating car. can such a car evolve a gps? if it can then why it will be possible in living things too?


even without this analogy we can ask about real designer like human. human c an change anything he want like mutations. right? so do you think that human can make a gps stepwise when every step is functional?

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't precisely answer your question, but you might find this video instructive:

actually they prove id since their starting point (pendulum) contain at least 3 parts. so even their first step is impossible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so what? its a theoretical question. we can ask what if we will have a self replicating car. can such a car evolve a gps?

It's a nonsense question - if a motorbike could write poetry, would it write ballads or heroic verse?

...even without this analogy we can ask about real designer like human. human c an change anything he want like mutations. right? so do you think that human can make a gps stepwise when every step is functional?

If you want to discuss problems you see with the evolution of particular features of living things, by all means do so.

The eye, bacterial flagellum, feathers, and wings all have been shown to have plausible evolutionary pathways. If there's something else that troubles you, just say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

actually they prove id since their starting point (pendulum) contain at least 3 parts. so even their first step is impossible.

I don't think you've understood the video. If you watch it carefully and read (and try to understand) the explanations of what's going on, you ought to be able to follow it. It's not difficult.

Hint - it doesn't start with a pendulum, it starts with a collection of separate pieces. Pendulums are the first timekeepers to evolve from the separate pieces.

 

[Heissonear]

so what? its a theoretical question. we can ask what if we will have a self replicating car. can such a car evolve a gps? if it can then why it will be possible in living things too?


even without this analogy we can ask about real designer like human. human c an change anything he want like mutations. right? so do you think that human can make a gps stepwise when every step is functional?

Your example is truthful in how some envision developments in evolution.

 

[Heissonear]

It's a nonsense ............ The eye, bacterial flagellum, feathers, and wings all have been shown to have plausible evolutionary pathways. If there's something else that troubles you, just say.

Yes, evolution is non-sense.

And what you state is is through faith. You have no fossil record evidence. Only connect the dot (fossils) conjecture (this is how the eye developed, ......)

I like the word "plausible pathway". It is so demanding of interpretation by conjecture.

Meanwhile, carbed motorbikes evolve to have fuel injection, and then to direct injection. So full of conjecture based claims of "higher complexity pathway".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your example is truthful in how some envision developments in evolution.

"Envision" being the important word. They don't understand, they envision. And they're wrong.

 

[xianghua]

The eye, bacterial flagellum, feathers, and wings all have been shown to have plausible evolutionary pathways. If there's something else that troubles you, just say.

where to start? here is one example. the olfactory system need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-odorant-receptors-are-localized-on-olfactory

 

[xianghua]

Your example is truthful in how some envision developments in evolution.

im not sure what doest it means but thanks. see also my example above.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

where to start? here is one example. the olfactory system need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-odorant-receptors-are-localized-on-olfactory

Requiring several parts for its function does not mean it's irreducibly complex, or that it can't evolve stepwise. The examples previously mentioned, and many others, demonstrate that.

Olfaction is of ancient origin, and its evolution well documented. Wikipedia gives a decent overview, but there's plenty more online.

 

[Heissonear]

Requiring several parts for its function does not mean it's irreducibly complex, or that it can't evolve stepwise. ............ Olfaction is of ancient origin, and its evolution well documented. Wikipedia gives a decent overview, but there's plenty more online.

We seem to see reoccurring conjecture based claims in what is presented.

So many are use to (find it normal) to state matters affirmatively but in reality they are based on conjecture.

 

[Heissonear]

Things as chemically-systematically-neurologically complex as olfactory systems do not even come close in complexity to carburetor to fuel injection development.

So why didn't cars independently evolve such (rather than rely on the itelligence of man)?

What magic does biochemistry have?

 

[Speedwell]

Things as chemically-systematically-neurologically complex as olfactory systems do not even come close in complexity to carburetor to fuel injection development.

So why didn't cars independently evolve such (rather than rely on the itelligence of man)?

They did. When they evolve naturally, we call them horses.

What magic does biochemistry have?

The ability to reproduce with accumulated variation.

 

[Jimmy D]

So why didn't cars independently evolve such (rather than rely on the itelligence of man)?

Sometimes I despair of mankind reading these forums.

 

[xianghua]

Requiring several parts for its function does not mean it's irreducibly complex, or that it can't evolve stepwise. The examples previously mentioned, and many others, demonstrate that.

Olfaction is of ancient origin, and its evolution well documented. Wikipedia gives a decent overview, but there's plenty more online.

not realy. a minimal olfactory system require at least 2-3 parts: a smell receptor, a connection to the nervous system and a system that can interpret it for the creature. so its irreducibly complex just from the start.

 

[VirOptimus]

not realy. a minimal olfactory system require at least 2-3 parts: a smell receptor, a connection to the nervous system and a system that can interpret it for the creature. so its irreducibly complex just from the start.

Just because you are ignorant on the science doesnt make it irreducible complex.

Your belief does not trumph reality.

 

[Heissonear]

Sometimes I despair of mankind reading these forums.

Many have faith in the exalted evolution. You do know that, don't you. That is the domain of my academic expertise.

 

[Heissonear]

Sometimes I despair of mankind reading these forums.

What you present is acceptance by belief. All through setting aside Creator to center only on natural processes.

 

[Heissonear]

They did. When they evolve naturally, we call them horses.


The ability to reproduce with accumulated variation.

The correlations from mineral processes to biochemical processes has been magnified by godless scientists.

What has mineral-based chemistry born? Non-life.

But grand faith in biochemistry has hearld unending advancements in Life forms.

Mineralized materials and functional sysytems and their evolution through natural processes equals evolution of a carborator to fuel injection. And much more, like crankcase fuel aspiration in two-strokes.

Mineralized materials has a grand evolution. But only through intervention of intelligence.

Biochemical developments have the same need of intelligence intervention.

But those of belief in what is still conjecture based see a dream and call it reality.