Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“You just need to open your mind” is what you say when there is not actually physical evidence.
 
Fossils. DNA. Feature similarities. Those are observable facts of evolution.
 
The fossil record is very discontinuous, shows abrupt appearance over and over, stasis and variation within.

Feature similarities show common design.
 
Yeah, it’s almost like quadrillions of animals interacting over hundreds of millions of years with the environment is a complicated process. Go figure.

Feature similarities do NOT show common design. Whales, if they were designed, were clearly not designed to grab things. Why then, do they have finger bones?
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Fossils. DNA. Feature similarities. Those are observable facts of evolution.
Click to expand...
These are not facts of evolution. They are simply factual data for evolution.
I see the theory of evolution similar to an economic theory. You have a set of observable data and you can make a theory out of it but I wouldn’t call the theory a fact because new data can adjust the theory. Even evolutionists would agree with this last point. Like economics it is difficult if not impossible to test your theories in an experiment.
 
Life has 500 or so conserved elements from which all models can be built.

The we saw the Antarctic whale jawbone discovery that dates it at the same time as the walking whales. Severely compresses the timeline needed.

Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology

Loading…

www.metacafe.com
 
Last edited:
Observable facts? What about this organism changed and became that, which required millions of years? What about novel organs or the development of wings? These things are not observable by definition.
 
Severely, but such things are explained away by guesswork. If a theory can be modified by storytelling then anything is - not really - possible.
 
I’m struggling to understand whether you know anything about the theory you deplore so much. Yes, for over four and a half billion years the world was completely devoid of birds.

And pineapples.
 
rossum said:
The majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious; that is not news to any biologist.
Click to expand...
But without any evidence of an evolutionary mistake, you are supporting a intelligent designer.

Or do you expect people will buy into the evolutionary process as right every time.

I have moved no goalposts.
I have simply shown a logical flaw with the theory.

You can tout how few as a percent deleterious mutations are, but the numbers are there. We should be seeing them in the fossil record.
The claim is that every species, every trait, was evolved.
There are a huge number of steps from microbe to man.
And with this, there are likewise a number (much smaller to be sure) of evolutionary missteps.
And both of these numbers increase with every species.

You brought a club foot to answer for all the absence of mistakes in evolution since the process started billions of years ago.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I’m struggling to understand whether you know anything about the theory you deplore so much. Yes, for over four and a half billion years the world was completely devoid of birds.

And pineapples.
Click to expand...
It was a barren wasteland with nothing to eat.
 
Last edited:
May I point out that things like “deplore so much” is not the issue? The issue is simple: claims involving gradual changes spanning millions of years appear to lack any level of credibility. Sure, there were dinosaurs. We have the fossils. But this creature evolving into something very different over millions of years? It is not a belief issue but a credibility issue. I read technical scientific journals and have learned the specific language but too often I see “must have,” “appears to,” and “most likely.” As a history researcher who does make every effort to help professionals working in my area of specialty, those conditional remarks would be automatically rejected. It’s hearsay. And I’ve seen examples where the data can be interpreted differently. Bias does exist in science.
 
Last edited:
Funny. Years ago, I decided to read all the horoscopes, not just mine. Strange thing. They could all apply to me. Which does reflect a bit of what scientists think may have happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top