C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
mistake
- Status
T
tjm190
Guest
confusion
C
cassini
Guest
Anyone that believes there was a world wide flood 4000 years is beyond help.
I believe there was a flood 4000 years ago. I believe there was an ark. I believe the Scriptures reveal a geocentric earth. I cannot believe so many believe in that imbicilic evolutionism. So there.
B
buffalo
Guest
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Then you are scientifically illiterate.
J
jibbler
Guest
Macro evolution has been proven by science
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714104000.htm
does thread go away now?
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714104000.htm
does thread go away now?
E
edwest2
Guest
This still does not explain gills to lungs.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
J
jibbler
Guest
Well yes it actually does, we know that all life originated in the oceans and that macro evolution is fact. we also know that there are land dwelling creatures as well as animals with gills and lungs; lungfish. put 2 and 2 together man.
B
buffalo
Guest
Darwin’s Predictions
…It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.
When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.
Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. 1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell?
…It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.
When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.
Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. 1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell?
C
CGDouglas
Guest
C
CGDouglas
Guest
It does seem rare for an explanation on the internet, this should help:
youtube.com/watch?v=EWGrMxKALzc
God Bless.
Chris.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for the link. It does not explain anything. It simply tells the viewer that this followed this which followed that. The mechanisms involved would require a vast and directed increase of information to create novel organs and the internal construction blueprints.
The eye is not just an eyeball. It is connected to the optic nerve which is connected to the brain. The most remarkable aspect is that the brain is able to interpret the image into something useful. For example, there is a dark spot on the ground. Is it a hole in the ground to be avoided? Is it a shadow cast by something above, say a clump of branches? Is it just a patch of exposed earth? Hopefully, it is not a hole big enough so that when the organism falls in it cannot get out.
And bacteria? Please. Millions and millions of bacteria can grow in a short time but they do not sprout arms or legs. They remain bacteria. And they have the built-in ability to laterally transfer bits of genetic material with other bacteria.
Peace,
Ed
The eye is not just an eyeball. It is connected to the optic nerve which is connected to the brain. The most remarkable aspect is that the brain is able to interpret the image into something useful. For example, there is a dark spot on the ground. Is it a hole in the ground to be avoided? Is it a shadow cast by something above, say a clump of branches? Is it just a patch of exposed earth? Hopefully, it is not a hole big enough so that when the organism falls in it cannot get out.
And bacteria? Please. Millions and millions of bacteria can grow in a short time but they do not sprout arms or legs. They remain bacteria. And they have the built-in ability to laterally transfer bits of genetic material with other bacteria.
Peace,
Ed
M
Mersenne
Guest
It wasn’t an explanation, it was a response to the earlier notion that evolution’s predictions fail. The link shows they clearly don’t.
Everyone who knows what they’re talking about disagrees with you, so you must have some massive amount of evidence to support this idea. I can’t wait to see you win the Nobel prize this year when you reveal your proof that information increases must be directed. In fact, since it’s a mathematical fact that information increases do not require direction, and it’s a fact that we can point to numerous examples of this, you must have one wickedly clever proof.
If they did that would disprove evolution. No one has ever suggested that bacteria should be capable of sprouting arms and legs.
G
grannymh
Guest
When human actions (intellect and will) cannot be located in physical bones, muscle, tissue, brain, etc. which has been suggested by evolutionary theory, then there has to be another source and it sure isn’t Walmart.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
E
edwest2
Guest
Probability theory denies that vast increases of genetic information are possible via random mutation and natural selection. The mutated organism would have to have a beneficial mutation and would have to be in the right environment at the right time for this mutation to be a benefit. And the world is a dynamic environment as opposed to a lab. Disease, lack of food or water, flood, fire and predators can kill the lucky mutant before he reproduces.
Unless you can show how DNA acquires useful, directed information, the explanations do not hold up. In order to build a complex device, parts need to go to the right location and be assembled in the correct order; if not, you only get partial function or no function. I have yet to see any explanation for information being added to DNA that could slowly, gradually build a novel organ.
Peace,
Ed
T
tjm190
Guest
You are horrifically misapplying probability theory. Given an vast number amount of mutations in every individual, it is completely within reason that beneficial mutations occur, and are passed down. And while not all beneficial mutations are passed down, the fact that those with beneficial mutations are MORE LIKELY to survive and reproduce and a large number of individual and mutations allow us to assume that beneficial mutations win out in the end by the Law of Large Numbers. Irreducible complexity has been debunked in every case to which it has been applied- systems that were presumed to be irreducibly complex had functions prior to their current state. For example, feathers had purpose prior to flight and 10 of the proteins making up the bacterial flagella also functioned on their own as a sort of syringe to inject toxins into other molecular organisms.
B
buffalo
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
If some process like evolution occurred, it had to be guided. Currently, the ‘predictions’ of evolution are no more than observations of current living things and a lot of imagination.
We have bacteria, and fish, amphibians and land-dwelling creatures. Then you convince people that first there were bacteria, then there were fish and then there were amphibians, followed by land-dwelling creatures. Some fish in the past could suddenly just gulp air, decided they liked it and spent more time on land? That’s conjecture - a story - and not a very good one. Then, while they were flopping around on land, their fins decided to turn into legs? I mean it looks good animated but that is not proof that it happened that way.
A part for the flagellum was first something syringe-like? Another story. In order for the syringe to work, the plunger must be precisely the right size. Too big, it won’t fit. Too small and air gets in, giving partial or zero function.
Peace,
Ed
We have bacteria, and fish, amphibians and land-dwelling creatures. Then you convince people that first there were bacteria, then there were fish and then there were amphibians, followed by land-dwelling creatures. Some fish in the past could suddenly just gulp air, decided they liked it and spent more time on land? That’s conjecture - a story - and not a very good one. Then, while they were flopping around on land, their fins decided to turn into legs? I mean it looks good animated but that is not proof that it happened that way.
A part for the flagellum was first something syringe-like? Another story. In order for the syringe to work, the plunger must be precisely the right size. Too big, it won’t fit. Too small and air gets in, giving partial or zero function.
Peace,
Ed
M
Mersenne
Guest
Another unfounded statement that contradicts all of modern science.
A list has been provided for you that contradicts this, go back and read it.
That’s not how evolution works, and the “proof” isn’t an animated cartoon. Please educate yourself before you run your mouth about things you don’t understand.
The evolution of the flagellum is well understood, go look it up.
T
tjm190
Guest
You seem to have ignored the fact that probability theory actually supports evolution through random mutation, and stuck with your original argument despite the fact that it’s basis has been debunked.
And no, not imagination, hypothesization. And obviously with our knowledge of genetics there is no more room for predictions, but several of Darwin’s predictions that appeared counter intuitive were later proven true- for example, despite the fact that civilization was born in the Middle East, Darwin predicted that since we share ancestry with Great Apes, our species originated in Africa. We now know this to be true.
And it’s not a literal syringe- it’s a simple 10 base pair structure that injects toxins into hosts. These same 10 base pairs are the base of the flagellum, disproving the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.
And these 10 base pairs may not have any sub functions, but 10 base pairs in a specific order could easily arrive through random chance- the objection to the bacterial flagellum as a whole evolving randomly was that 50 base pairs is highly unlikely
- Status