Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[inquiring mind]

You understand, I hope, that the changes Brightmoon was talking about took place over many tens of thousands of generation?

What did I say that would make you think otherwise?

And not by "chance" or "accident" but by the interaction of random variation and natural selection.

Now that's a "play" on words.

 

[inquiring mind]

I did, maybe you should also?

My point(s) stand.

From Brightmoon's post #910: "Something that you would probably call a worm evolved into all of the bilaterians. The wormlike organism turned upside down so that the nerve cord ran along the ventral side . The gut ran along the dorsal side. and these “worms” eventually evolved into the arthropods . On our side of the family tree the “worm” ancestor stayed right side up"

Do arthropods walk or not? They look like they do. What are you asking me?

My point(s) stand.

I'm sure they do.

 

[Speedwell]

What did I say that would make you think otherwise?

You can never tell with creationists.

Now that's a "play" on words.

"Chance" or "accident" are not accurate descriptions of a stochastic process.

 

[inquiring mind]

View attachment 226937
Here’s your “worms” that became other organisms! As you can see even starfish and humans share a common ancestry. And this was well understood by the beginning of the 20th century . Remember that these lineages can be independently confirmed thru genetics, developmental biology, and paleontology

As I've stated many times, I'm not arguing the science (maybe some of the interpretations). I just don't buy the leap to Adamic man. Now back to my comment that began this particular line of the discussion: a Gap between the evolutionary progression and Adamic man (God-created with some other species carry-over) ... I see as one possibility.

 

[Brightmoon]

Gap creation- Which there’s no evidence for

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans are Primates . Primates are vertebrates. Vertebrates are deuterostomes. Adam was human so he fit into all of those other Clades as well

 

[Speedwell]

thanks. and flagellum also resembles something that are made by humans (such as spinning motor) as you can see here:



so according to this criteria the flagellum is also the result of design.

But on closer examination it turns out not to be man-made, so no conclusion can be drawn.

 

[inquiring mind]

Gap creation- Which there’s no evidence for

That’s true, one possibility I said.

 

[xianghua]

That isn't true.

You can't just say that evolution can explain something impossible without explaining yourself.

if we will find that many species (or even all of them) mix up at the same layer we can claim that they just evolved quickly. easy as that.

That's nonsense.

That description could apply to every single species.

Actually that could apply to every individual.

i actually refer to unique combination of complex system. so i dont talk about just simple variations. think about how we clasify cars.

Except the problem is that IC systems have never been shown to be a barrier. Possible pathways have always been shown.

not realy. at the genetic level we never seen any scenario for any complex system. not even for a single one.

No. Robots are constructed and are not organic.

so if a robot is made from organic components its not a robot by definition?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

thanks. and flagellum also resembles something that are made by humans (such as spinning motor) as you can see here:

so according to this criteria the flagellum is also the result of design.

(image from Flagellar Motor Intelligent Design - impremedia.net)

Notice that the image has been edited to smooth the flagellar components and give them edges to look like machined parts. Looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive.

An ignorant person might think it looks designed because of this manipulation...

 

[Speedwell]

Notice that the image has been edited to smooth the flagellar components and give them edges to look like machined parts. Looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive.

An ignorant person might think it looks designed because of this manipulation...

To give Xianghua full credit, I don't think he is looking at that picture as an actual image of the flagellum. Rather, he recognizes it as a schematic of the functional arrangement of the components of the flagellum. His mistake is in assuming that functional arrangement of components is evidence of intelligent design. It's the same mistake that all ID proponents make.

 

[xianghua]

starfish tunicates and mammals are close relatives. Deuterostomes . Adult organisms sometimes have body plans that do not look alike but the juveniles do resemble each other . Early human fetuses ( before limb formation) and starfish juveniles do look like tunicate juveniles

but you imply here that such a fossil will not falsify evolution:

"When I said bunnies in the Precambrian i specifically did not mean an out of place fossil "

so now you agree that its actually wrong? so or so i explained why such a fossil will not falsify evolution, so evolution isnt a scientific theory.

 

[xianghua]

Notice that the image has been edited to smooth the flagellar components and give them edges to look like machined parts. Looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive.

An ignorant person might think it looks designed because of this manipulation...

not realy for several reasons:

1) even scientific sources makes the same thing:

A Delicate Nanoscale Motor Made by Nature—The Bacterial Flagellar Motor

2) any object at this scale looks different since its too small.

3) here is an actuall image of the flagellum. and as you can see its very similar to the above image:

(image from » What is the frequency of rotary molecular motors?)

so or so: any motor is evidence for design.

 

[Speedwell]

not realy for several reasons:

1) even scientific sources makes the same thing:

A Delicate Nanoscale Motor Made by Nature—The Bacterial Flagellar Motor

2) any object at this scale looks different since its too small.

3) here is an actuall image of the flagellum. and as you can see its very similar to the above image:

(image from » What is the frequency of rotary molecular motors?)

so or so: any motor is evidence for design.

Still no. Man-made motors are designed. Naturally occurring motors you can't tell. Just because it's a "motor" isn't enough.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

not realy for several reasons:

1) even scientific sources makes the same thing:

A Delicate Nanoscale Motor Made by Nature—The Bacterial Flagellar Motor

2) any object at this scale looks different since its too small.

3) here is an actuall image of the flagellum. and as you can see its very similar to the above image:

(image from » What is the frequency of rotary molecular motors?)

so or so: any motor is evidence for design.

The photographic image doesn't have sufficient resolution, the other images are pure schematics; your original image shows the lipid molecules in the cell membrane, but treats the flagellar structure like machined components - here's a better representation:

 

[PsychoSarah]

but you imply here that such a fossil will not falsify evolution:

"When I said bunnies in the Precambrian i specifically did not mean an out of place fossil "

so now you agree that its actually wrong? so or so i explained why such a fossil will not falsify evolution, so evolution isnt a scientific theory.

The phrase "out of place fossil" may imply that the organism from which the fossil is derived didn't die in the same time period as the rock that formed it would suggest. There are several specific locations in which it is well documented that fossils from upper layers of strata sometimes fall deep down and get incorporated into the lower strata layers. Similar things can happen with modern animals at these locations. The resulting fossils are such that the dating of them is inconsistent.

If a hypothetical rabbit actually lived in the Precambrian, died then, and fossilized then, that fossil wouldn't be out of place, because it's not like it shouldn't end up in Precambrian layers under those circumstances. Would totally wreak evolution, which predicts rabbits should NEVER have existed during the Precambrian.

 

[Brightmoon]

="inquiring mind, post: 72587821, member: 394017"]From Brightmoon's post #910: "Something that you would probably call a worm evolved into all of the bilaterians. The wormlike organism turned upside down so that the nerve cord ran along the ventral side . The gut ran along the dorsal side. and these “worms” eventually evolved into the arthropods . On our side of the family tree the “worm” ancestor stayed right side up"

Do arthropods walk or not? They look like they do. What are you asking me?

Not all of them walk or have functional legs . Scale insects don’t move much as juveniles and cannot walk as adults

The ancestor of the Arthropoda was something you would have called a worm ( worm has no real scientific meaning ) you can tell that their side of the family tree turned over on its back because of the way the nerves grow. The gut goes between a fork in the main nervous system (incidentally it restricts their size and prevents them from getting a large brain - the gut is in the way)[/QUOTE]

 

[Shemjaza]

if we will find that many species (or even all of them) mix up at the same layer we can claim that they just evolved quickly. easy as that.

That's a lie.

You can't support this.

i actually refer to unique combination of complex system. so i dont talk about just simple variations. think about how we clasify cars.

Still nonsense. You have nothing clear to define.

I told you why your car analogy was totally wrong.
Building a car and a truck from completely different and new material using different machinery add ons woudl leave them still leave them a car and a truck. This would also totally violate any description of "species" when talking about life.

The Tasmanian wolf and the dingo are four legged predators who (until recently) hunted in Australia... but if you look at their remains they extremely distantly related.

not realy. at the genetic level we never seen any scenario for any complex system. not even for a single one.

Lie.

Every time Behe and co came up with another a viable example was proposed.

You don't get to say: "Until you can explain in detail every single fact in the universe, then Magic is just as real as science."

so if a robot is made from organic components its not a robot by definition?

I think that would be a good idea.

If you would clearly define both your terms, and what you mean then we might be able to have discussions.

 

[xianghua]

Still no. Man-made motors are designed. Naturally occurring motors you can't tell. Just because it's a "motor" isn't enough.

its like saying "just because its a car isnt enough to conclude design".

 

[xianghua]

If a hypothetical rabbit actually lived in the Precambrian, died then, and fossilized then, that fossil wouldn't be out of place, because it's not like it shouldn't end up in Precambrian layers under those circumstances. Would totally wreak evolution, which predicts rabbits should NEVER have existed during the Precambrian.

but we can claim that such a rabbit shape just evolved twice, or we can claim for unknown process or something else. evolution will be just fine.