Member
Vistigial structures, poor "design", unnecessary complexity. It looks like there's more of a halfhazard accumulation of changes, mutations that are not beneficial, endigenous retroviruses, etc. These things don't make sense from an intelligent design perspective.Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet
Member
This has been debunked. Scientists reject the irreducible complexity argument.The magnificent work with extreme and delicate balance and complexity is the evidence (if yer eyes werked).
You're the one who's all "huffy". You have a major problem with evolution, especially common descent. It gets your undies in a wad.
I don't use faith. I care about the evidence. I don't have any beliefs keeping me from accepting the evidence.
I care more about whatever the truth is. I don't want a comforting lie. Something wrong with this?
Where did all the species come from? Thin air via your god? How did he make them? How would they have started? Did they magically appear fully formed?
And the story of Cindarella proves that Cindarella was a real person and all that stuff happened. You can't use the bible as proof for anything.Christ was seen, and Moses saw a burning bush.
The way I see it is, a natural explanation is the most likely, it makes the most sense, it fits the best and there's a ton of evidence supporting it. A god makes no sense, requires an explanation we don't have, and is unnecessary. If we can explain how plants grow, why think invisible fairies have anything to do with it? This isn't a religious belief, just logic. I just have no reason to add anything unexplainable that is completely outside of nature.
I'll leave you with the following:
"In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[57][58] Numerous other potential ways to falsify evolution have also been proposed.[32] For example, the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypotheses involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion.[59] The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[60] Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[61] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Senior Member
If you didn't have a lot of faith you would never accept such a shaky theory as "fact" when it very clearly isn't.
You clearly follow yer faith. It's a shame you can't see what everybody else does. Evidence has very little impact upon you.
Not hardly: Einstein. Most fossils are small pieces of bone that true believers extrapolate into organisms they make up outa whole cloth.
They base their cornstructions of these imaginary "transitional" organisms the same way that the Greeks, Chinese and Persians, (authors of the original evolution theory that became yer religion), observed long ago the similarities of most organisms with hard skeletons. When the more complete fossil is eventually found true believers admit the organism was fully developed and not "transitional" and look for another piece of bone to make chit up again fer the followers.
No transition is shown in the fossil record. NONE AT ALL. It is just the faith of true believers.
With a heart full of faith.
Senior Member
Until a purpose is discovered that was previously overlooked. The "poor" design of life you bemoan is much more elegant then any design by man.
You may fancy yerself an ace mindreader; yer not.
Ya can't even read a single functional brain cell, so yer surely not gonna be able ta read the mind or intentions of God. Jesus appears to allow free agency in us as you believe in your own religion, why could God not allow free agency in the development of all living things?
Sure they do. An omnipotent omnicient Intelligent Designer could do anything. The work is very impressive.
Senior Member
Not all have. Don't ya think the Big Bang is an impressive bit o' werk?
Ya think?
Not at all....... I jus' correctly identify it as a religion, (some of which may even be possible).
Naw me undies are quite comfy. After all I don't deny me own religion.
Yasureyabetcha. Ya don't breathe either eh?
Ya "care" eh? How touching....
Ya can't see the log in yer eye butt ya see those specs in everybody elses' eh?
Truth eh? Hmmmmmmm.......ya say?
Not at all..... I don't have any problem with yer religion. I don't have a problem with denial either.
Hard tellin' not knowin'. Must be Jesus!
Not usin' the Bible ta "prove" anything. Do you deny that Christ, (the historical figure), existed? Yer that one who claims yer religion is "fact", I know mine is faith. To you Jesus may have been a man to me he is GOD.
To me a natural explanation is Jesus created all we see. It is the most likely it makes the most sense, and all observations support it.
Evolution requires an explanation we don't have, (unless ya cornsider God),.....where did life cum from????
What does that have ta do with the price of beans in Boston??
It is primarily religious belief
The origin of life is already unexplainable via yer religion of evolution: Einstein.
The theory of evolution has some merit. It is not fact nor is it irrefutably proven. It has some observations that fit some parts of the theory and many observations do not fit at all.
Senior Member
an example, not a generalization.....I believe you are incorrectly characterizing....for example, it has been claimed that bones in a whale's flipper is vestigial.....yet it serves a purpose in providing structure and strength in the flipper.....
???...wouldn't that be a failing of evolution rather than creation?....mutations that are not beneficial
you realize of course that these are abnormalities that have developed through improper cell development, correct?.....every day uncountable trillions of cells form in the world.....the percentage that develop abnormalities is miniscule.....endigenous retroviruses
Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 05-18-2010 at 10:29 PM.
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
read it and weep creationist bitches
Scientists create a living organism
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/sci...ex.html?hpt=T2
Senior Member
lol, you are as ignorant of biology as the person who wrote the article.....notice this....
they didn't create life, they simply made a transplant into an already living organism.....They then transferred the completed genome into the shell of another bacterium M capricolum whose own DNA had been removed.
Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 05-21-2010 at 08:06 AM.
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
Those true believers will jump at anything to bolster their faith eh: PmP?
Senior Member
Thought you were out orbiting Mars 'til August or some such???
Member
What's with this fully developed thing you keep harking on about? Are you saying that current life forms are fully developed while earlier forms leading to current forms wouldn't be? If so you're looking at it all wrong. Nothing is "fully developed", but rather in the state it's at. Are we not fully developed? What makes something fully developed? Things change with time at varying rates. The concept of a species being fully developed or not is completely useless and nonsensical.
When the more complete fossil is eventually found true believers admit the organism was fully developed and not "transitional" and look for another piece of bone to make chit up again fer the followers.
No transition is shown in the fossil record. NONE AT ALL. It is just the faith of true believers.
Member
Like I pointed out before, vistigial structures need not be useless, just diminished or changed. But of course you ignore and information I give you so I guess you wouldn't know that still.
Elegant? You mean like eyes or wings that are fully formed yet permanently sealed and unusable? Or like the blind spot humans have? What about non beneficial, even deadly or horrible mutations? Man or even a fucking monkey could a better job than that.
This is you rationalizing away any incriminating evidence. "OH, well, the creator can do anything he wants, so everything fits!" Gee, how scientific! Yea, this is one good reason why I.D. can never be science. It assums god did everything and uses the age old cop out that he simply chooses to do it that way for everything. It's completely unfalsifiable. Not to mention we can't even show that a god exists in the first place. I.D. is tooth fairy science or fairy tale science. Meaning that it misuses science to show how a fairy tale can be true without first proving the premise.Jesus appears to allow free agency in us as you believe in your own religion, why could God not allow free agency in the development of all living things?[/COLOR]
Sure they do. An omnipotent omnicient Intelligent Designer could do anything. The work is very impressive.
And if god supposedly allows this free agency so they can develop on their own, then why do we need him for evolution? You're saying that oh yea, things can evolve on their own because god allows it, but evolution is false! Do you not see how this doesn't make sense?
Senior Member
An organism that is alive, part of a population of similar organisms, lives for a defined life span, converts sources of energy from the environment into biologic energy, procreates like organisms to succeed it after death of said organism.
All known life forms (both living and extinct) are fully developed; NONE ARE "INTERMEDIATE". The "Holy Grail" of yer religion that plainly does not exist.
Nope. I'm not a true believer of yer religion and I see the profound weaknesses within you can't possibly recognize due to yer faith.
That's yer religion talking.
As I said above: An organism that is alive, part of a population of similar organisms, lives for a defined life span, converts sources of energy from the environment into biologic energy, procreates like organisms to succeed it after death of said organism.
What does that have ta do with the price of beans in Boston?
To those true belivers with totally closed minds. The rest of us can see no evidence of intermediate organisms.
Senior Member
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Until a purpose is discovered that was previously overlooked. The "poor" design of life you bemoan is much more elegant then any design by man."Diminished or changed" in who's judgment? Hmmmmmmmmm???? True belivers tryin' ta grasp at straws ta prove their precornceived bias in support of their religion?
How do you know what I ignore or pay attention to? Are ya some sorta ace mindreader or some such?
You actually think man or a monkey can create life or organs? Even organs that don't measure up to yer standards?
Yer gettin' a bit huffy again eh???
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Jesus appears to allow free agency in us as you believe in your own religion, why could God not allow free agency in the development of all living things?
Sure they do. An omnipotent omnicient Intelligent Designer could do anything. The work is very impressive.ID is an alternative and very logical explanation for all we observe. God's work is how we show his existance as black holes are not directly observed; butt: shown by the effects on nearby matter and light.
Because we can't explain where life came from, or what made the Big Bang happen out of a tiny singularity in the middle of nothingness among other things.
Evolution is unproven; and not a fact. Show me where I said evolution "is false". You sure get huffy about yer religion. Get some fresh undies you will feeeeeeeel better.
Makes perfect sense.
Member
Like I've pointed out before, vestigial structures don't have to be functionless. They can be used in other ways or simply diminished/not as important. If you or Murky would actually read some of the info I've posted, maybe you'd know that.
No, not at all. Mutations range from beneficial to harmful. The organisms with good or neutral mutations survive or survive better and the ones with bad mutations die or decrease in number from failing to reproduce, or at least not reproduce as much. Mutations sound bad but really they are just changes that can be good bad or neutral.???...wouldn't that be a failing of evolution rather than creation?....
Indogenous retroviral insertions are germline dna insertions from retroviruses. For the same insertions to appear in the same exact places in the dna of different species without them having a common ancestor is impossible. This short video explains it in a way that's easy to understand.you realize of course that these are abnormalities that have developed through improper cell development, correct?.....every day uncountable trillions of cells form in the world.....the percentage that develop abnormalities is miniscule.....
A short article on it: http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Endogeno...Common-Descent
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...5/?tool=pubmed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
