Has science falsified macroevolution?

[Eleve]

Wait — so this book hasn’t even been released yet, but you’re convinced that it will contain the clincher argument for creationism? And you wonder why we attack Meyer’s credibility?

 

[buffalo]

I’ll call your bluff, then. Care to enlighten the guy who has a degree in empirical science on the meaning of “empirical science”?

Look it up in the dictionary.

 

[buffalo]

Wait — so this book hasn’t even been released yet, but you’re convinced that it will contain the clincher argument for creationism? And you wonder why we attack Meyer’s credibility?

We should reserve judgement until we read the arguments.

 

[avflf]

OK lets talk evidence

The first piece of evidence i would like to present is unique character combinations. Every animal alive falls into a nested hierarchy. For example there is not ONE mammal that does not have a spine, a jaw, 4 limbs, 2 eyes, lungs, is bilaterally symmetrical, and so on. .

The Cyclops only had one eye

If we are part of some grand design, then why was god limited when creating mammals? Why could he not make ONE mammal with say gills? Like a whale for example, why did he not give whales gills. These are NOT similarities, they are unique character combinations which CANT be broken. If you break them then you have falsified evolution…

A mammal with gills would be an evolutionary step, not so?

So why does the whale, contain ALL the features of a mammal? Why was god bound when designing the whale? Why could be not give them gills? Why do they swim up and down the why (the way a mammal runs), rather than side to side (like a fish)? Why do they have hair?

Maybe because it’s a mammal?

Common designer has NO way to explain this other then god made the whale that way to make it look like it had evolved. Evolution explains this PERFECTLY.

And whence cometh the whale? And whereto shalt it go?

 

[Eleve]

We should reserve judgement until we read the arguments.

You shouldn’t present it as an argument, then. About all that can be said about the book right now is that Stephen C. Meyer wrote it, which is why his credibility matters so much.

The Cyclops only had one eye

Y’know, I have a feeling that Darwin was talking about real mammals. The Cyclops is no more evidence against evolution than Zeus is evidence against God.

 

[buffalo]

You shouldn’t present it as an argument, then. About all that can be said about the book right now is that Stephen C. Meyer wrote it, which is why his credibility matters so much.

Y’know, I have a feeling that Darwin was talking about real mammals. The Cyclops is no more evidence against evolution than Zeus is evidence against God.

What argument did I present it as?

 

[buffalo]

You shouldn’t present it as an argument, then. About all that can be said about the book right now is that Stephen C. Meyer wrote it, which is why his credibility matters so much.

.

Then you will have an easy time refuting his arguments. So not to worry.

 

[M0nkey]

If we are part of some grand design, then why was god limited when creating mammals? Why could he not make ONE mammal with say gills? Like a whale for example, why did he not give whales gills. These are NOT similarities, they are unique character combinations which CANT be broken. If you break them then you have falsified evolution.

That is design! To have gills in a mammal would be absurd, that is why God had no intention for them in mammals. The fact that there are “unique character combinations” single handedly proves ID. Nice one. :clapping:

 

[M0nkey]

It also begs the question why don’t you apply the same complaint about complexity to your god? Where did your god come from? Surely something so unbelievably intricate and complex, cant just kind of fell into place

One of the tenets of our faith is God has no Beginning, for if He did, it would not be God. There are most certainly created gods, however, people that worship science, i.e…

 

[Eleve]

The fact that there are “unique character combinations” single handedly proves ID.

That… no. What? As this fact could be explained by both the theory of evolution and creationism, neither is “proven” by it.

What argument did I present it as?

You originally linked to the book preview in response to Darwin’s claim that “DNA is very strong evidence for evolution.” The impression is that the book would refute that claim, but as the actual contents and arguments of the book are, as of yet, hidden, there is no way to read, discuss, criticize, refute, or invoke them as an argument.

There are most certainly created gods, however, people that worship science, i.e…

My patience to participate in this thread will be very short indeed if I am going to have to constantly duck spurious claims that I “worship science.” This rings an awful lot like that Protestant nonsense about Catholics worshiping Mary.

 

[buffalo]

You originally linked to the book preview in response to Darwin’s claim that “DNA is very strong evidence for evolution.” The impression is that the book would refute that claim, but as the actual contents and arguments of the book are, as of yet, hidden, there is no way to read, discuss, criticize, refute, or invoke them as an argument.

.

Aaahh! I have been arguing that the Language of DNA points to design for some time now. Being a newbie you probably missed it. I used the book as a hope it was backing my argument, which it looks like it will.

 

[Eleve]

Yes. Well. My point is that we are currently living in the present, and until such a time as we are living in the future, writings and arguments that will only be published in the future are of little value to our current, present discussion. With that in mind, do you have some other response to Darwin’s claim that isn’t drawn from a yet-unseen source?

 

[M0nkey]

My patience to participate in this thread will be very short indeed if I am going to have to constantly duck spurious claims that I “worship science.” This rings an awful lot like that Protestant nonsense about Catholics worshiping Mary.

It was merely an example, not an actual accusation. Calm down, Geez.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Aaahh! I have been arguing that the Language of DNA points to design for some time now. Being a newbie you probably missed it. I used the book as a hope it was backing my argument, which it looks like it will.

I have a bit of an issue with this analogy. Could you point me in the direction of a book, pamphlet, hell even a sentence that can self replicate?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That is design! To have gills in a mammal would be absurd, that is why God had no intention for them in mammals. The fact that there are “unique character combinations” single handedly proves ID. Nice one. :clapping:

To allow wales to breath under water would be absurd? Why did god allow fish to breath under water, but not wales?

I cant wait to hear this one … how on earth do unique character combinations support ID???

 

[reggieM]

If we are part of some grand design, then why was god limited when creating mammals?

That’s a better question than we usually get. You’re asking “why was God …” something. You’ve drawn a conclusion about God. From what I’ve seen, you don’t know that much about God, but you answer questions about Him and His nature and His purposes. Where did you get the information?

As for the actual question - because an artist chooses to paint watercolors of landscapes, do you think he is “limited” to that topic and style?

In any case, I think you would do very well to wonder why God did the things that He did – because you will find out many things about the mysteries of life and the universe that way. But if you think that the only way you’re going to understand God is by looking at rocks or test-tubes, you’re not going to get very far on your journey.

Open your vision wider and deeper – at least to the philosophical level. After that, you can move to the theological. But right now, it appears that you’re “limiting” yourself by insisting on sensory data alone to understand reality. You do this using arguments based on immaterial (non-sensory, non-empirical) sources.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That’s a better question than we usually get. You’re asking “why was God …” something. You’ve drawn a conclusion about God. From what I’ve seen, you don’t know that much about God, but you answer questions about Him and His nature and His purposes. Where did you get the information?

As for the actual question - because an artist chooses to paint watercolors of landscapes, do you think he is “limited” to that topic and style?

In any case, I think you would do very well to wonder why God did the things that He did – because you will find out many things about the mysteries of life and the universe that way. But if you think that the only way you’re going to understand God is by looking at rocks or test-tubes, you’re not going to get very far on your journey.

Open your vision wider and deeper – at least to the philosophical level. After that, you can move to the theological. But right now, it appears that you’re “limiting” yourself by insisting on sensory data alone to understand reality. You do this using arguments based on immaterial (non-sensory, non-empirical) sources.

Not even close to an answer. I would like to know why god was limited when he created the animals, to make them look EXACTLY the way they would if they had evolved.

As for " at least to the philosophical level. After that, you can move to the theological."

Sorry i like to live in a little thing called reality. Im not interseted in “opening my vision” to myth and fariy tales.

 

[reggieM]

Not even close to an answer. I would like to know why god was limited when he created the animals, to make them look EXACTLY the way they would if they had evolved.

He gave nature the appearance of “having been designed for a purpose” – as Richard Dawkins stated. Why are you not able to see what this famous evolutionist can see?

The animals do not look like they were created by random mutations – since mutations cause a lot of damage to organisms and to DNA.

But why did God create the original forms of various beings to look similar? It was to provide an atmosphere of commonality. When people look at the faces of many different animals they see expressions that humans can relate to. We see animals have eyes which are often expressive. They have attractive features that win our affection and admiration. We see them having similar characteristics - paws that look like hands, beaks that look like noses. Even with plants, we say that they open their flowers to the sun and reach for the light – we see human characteristics in life and that makes the world more friendly for us. The fact that the universe is intelligible at all goes far beyond what you can gather by empiricism.

How do you value the virtue of humility, for example? Do you feel it is something worthless?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

He gave nature the appearance of “having been designed for a purpose” – as Richard Dawkins stated. Why are you not able to see what this famous evolutionist can see?

The animals do not look like they were created by random mutations – since mutations cause a lot of damage to organisms and to DNA.

But why did God create the original forms of various beings to look similar? It was to provide an atmosphere of commonality. When people look at the faces of many different animals they see expressions that humans can relate to. We see animals have eyes which are often expressive. They have attractive features that win our affection and admiration. We see them having similar characteristics - paws that look like hands, beaks that look like noses. Even with plants, we say that they open their flowers to the sun and reach for the light – we see human characteristics in life and that makes the world more friendly for us. The fact that the universe is intelligible at all goes far beyond what you can gather by empiricism.

How do you value the virtue of humility, for example? Do you feel it is something worthless?

I don’t know where to start, what utter drivel. This is what you get when someone who is incapable of understanding the evidence starts drawing conclusions based on it.

Firstly most mutations have absolutely no effect on the organism, but mutations have nothing to do with my point, please try to stay on the subject.

You have either misread or misunderstood my post. I clearly stated “unique character combinations” NOT similarities. It has NOTHING to do with the way animals look. Were taking about anatomy. I want to know why when god created mammals he was limited to creating them in branched hierarchies? So either explain why god was limited to hierarchies or give me and example of an animal that breaks a nested set.

 

[reggieM]

Firstly most mutations have absolutely no effect on the organism, but mutations have nothing to do with my point, please try to stay on the subject.

You asked:

why god was limited when he created the animals, to make them look EXACTLY the way they would if they had evolved

I don’t understand the question, but mutations have something to do with it I would think because that is your explanation for how animals “look”.

It has NOTHING to do with the way animals look.

Clearly, when you said “make them look EXACTLY” I though it had something to do with the way animals look, but I guess not.

Regarding mutations, we could consider mutations in eyes.

Mutations in eyes cause some problems.

• A genetic mutation that causes a **congenital eye movement disorder **called Duane syndrome
• Branchio-oto-renal syndrome associated mutations in Eyes … BOR-associated mutations lead to a loss of phosphatase activity in Eya1 proteins, while mutations associated with ocular defects
• Mutations in RPE65, a gene essential to normal operation of the visual (retinoid) cycle, cause the **childhood blindness **known as Leber congenital amaurosis
• A novel mutation within the rhodopsin gene (Thr‐94‐Ile) causes autosomal dominant **congenital stationary night blindness **…
• Gene Mutation That Causes **Blindness **in Yemenite Jews Found …
• Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is one of the most common causes of blindness. … The gene mutations have been identified by vision researchers at the University
• Mutations in GRM6 Cause Autosomal Recessive Congenital Stationary Night Blindness
• Saint Louis University researchers have discovered the mutation which causes one form of retinitis pigmentosa, a type of genetically inherited blindness. They discovered it interferes with a process necessary for healthy cell development. The mutation causes a secretory protein in the capillaries beneath the retina to improperly “fold,” a process necessary for healthy cell development. When the proteins fail to fold quickly enough, a response is triggered that can cause the cells to die.
• Centrosomal-ciliary gene CEP290/NPHP6 mutations result in **blindness **…
• ESCS is a rare **degenerative disease **of the retina … scientists tested 35 ESCS-affected and found that nearly every sample had a mutation".

So, these are loss of function mutations which damage the eyes and ruin vision.

At the same time that these harmful mutations are seen constantly in the human population, there should be beneficial mutations that improve eyesight over time.

By now, humans should be able to see farther than they have in the past.

Some mutations kill eye functions entirely. Others, claimed to be “beneficial” have done nothing to improve vision signficantly in the entire history of the human race.

The same kind of analysis could be done on mutations which cause physical deformities in human beings.

So your question again … why god was limited when he created the animals, to make them look EXACTLY the way they would if they had evolved?

God was not limited and animals do not look like they were the product of mutations. Mutations are still causing blindness and nobody relies on natural selection to fix that problem. Additionally, mutations have not fixed many problems with human eyesight and have not given humans better eyesight in the past 10,000 years.

They have a damaging effect and cause loss of function.