Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
What do you mean ‘didn’t know how to survive’? Everyone in the scenario lived happily ever after.
Click to expand...
I was talking about transitional stages / steps that led up to the species that we have today and the corresponding extinction /die out process.
 
Richca said:
Yes, after 50,000 generations there remains E-coli. Also, this experiment is in a controlled enviroment, not the real world, and it favors artificially induced mutations, gene expression, or whatever they are doing from what I understand.
Click to expand...
Not at all, the experiment favours stability. There is minimal environmental pressure to evolve. That’s the whole point.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
What do you mean ‘didn’t know how to survive’? Everyone in the scenario lived happily ever after.
Click to expand...
I was talking about transitional stages / steps that led up to the species that we have today and the corresponding extinction /die out process.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/whales-graph.jpg
Click to expand...
Techno, all you are doing is exhibiting that you have either not read posts that have been directed to you or do not understand them.

Have a go at answering your own plant question. Let’s see what you can do without any help.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Evolution does not have to be observed at all for it still to be a better explanation for what is observed than creationism.
Click to expand...
Creation was only observed by God. Evolution was observed by no one.

God, through His Revelation told us what happened. Man tells us what he thinks happened.
 
Bacteria already had the ability to digest citrate. In fact, before and after Lenski, other experiments showed they adapted within 4 weeks.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
Have a go at answering your own plant question.
Click to expand...
Sure, God created plants.
Click to expand...
And how did what I saY earlier relate to plants? That was your question. So give it a go…
Click to expand...
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
Have a go at answering your own plant question.
Click to expand...
Sure, God created plants.
Click to expand...
And how did what I saY earlier relate to plants? That was your question. So give it a go…
Click to expand...
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.
Click to expand...
Well done. See, you can do this by yourself. Organisms change slowly to adapt to changing conditions. And then we end up with fish that can fly and fish that can climb trees and birds that can’t fly and birds that can swim and plants that live in water and plants that live in deserts and plants that catch their prey And plants that have edible seeds and plants that don’t and mammals that have live births and mammals that lay eggs and a whole planetfull of diversity.

Just by slow changes over time to adapt to changing conditions. Just like you said.
 
“Hugh_Farey said:
Well, OK.

1) Some organic structures could not have evolved.

This, of course, is an opinion. To have any kind of credibility, it must be based on evidence (empirical: something you can see), which is wholly lacking. Mostly the argument is probability based, but such arguments are logically unsound, as well as lacking in data. Mathematically, it must not be assumed that “vanishingly improbable” equals “impossible”. As soon as it is admitted that there is a non-zero probability for something, it becomes a viable possibility. Not only that, but it becomes an immediate possibility. It is a mistake to imagine that because you have a one in a million chance of winning a lottery, you can never win it, (that’s obvious) but it also is a mistake to imagine that you will have to buy a million tickets before you can win. Some people win with their first and only ticket. A tiny probability of an occurrence is not a dictator of when the occurrence will take place.
Click to expand...
From what we have learned in the last 100 years or so concerning the enormous and almost unbelievable complexity of organisms including ourselves, how all the biological systems and body parts function for the good and life of the whole organism and species of the animal, I believe that indeed it is not only not possible but absurd according to the nature of organisms that greater complex species evolved from lower species or the evolution of any novel organs, structures, functions, or whole body plans from the lower and simpler organisms. The supposed evolution of dinosaurs into birds or rodents into whales involves a complete overhaul of the whole organism including it seems to me of every physiological or biological system, the skeletal and muscular, respiratory and circulatory, the nervous system including a complete overhaul of the enormously complex brain, novel organs, etc. In my opinion, the whole macro-evolutionary idea is absurd.
What’s more, in order to show by probability that Creation is a better explanation for the history of biology than creationism, one would have to show that spontaneous creation was more probable. I do not believe this has been attempted, let alone achieved, and for that reason I think that Evolution is a better explanation than Creation.
Click to expand...
Probability does not enter into the picture of spontaneous or special creation by God because we know with 100% certainty that God can do it. Accordingly, an idea of the ‘probability of creation’ is a false idea. What comparison is there between the probability of evolution and the 100% certainty of creation? Lastly, there is no proportion between the finite (creatures) and the infinite (God).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. My post was, however, directed to those who attempt to support their opinion with evidence rather than by simple assertion.

However, as it happens your own beliefs are self-contradictory. You say that God is 100% able to do things by creation, but limit his powers considerably by also saying that he is 100% unable to do things by evolution. I do not believe in such a constricted God.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
Have a go at answering your own plant question.
Click to expand...
Sure, God created plants.
Click to expand...
And how did what I saY earlier relate to plants? That was your question. So give it a go…
Click to expand...
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.
Click to expand...
Well done. See, you can do this by yourself. Organisms change slowly to adapt to changing conditions. And then we end up with fish that can fly and fish that can climb trees and birds that can’t fly and birds that can swim and plants that live in water and plants that live in deserts and plants that catch their prey And plants that have edible seeds and plants that don’t and mammals that have live births and mammals that lay eggs and a whole planetfull of diversity.

Just by slow changes over time to adapt to changing conditions. Just like you said.
Click to expand...
Well , that settles it… things evolve.
 
You are right. The addition of a novel organ requires a reworking of all related systems, including the nervous system and brain. We breathe without thinking about it. As presented here, evolution doesn’t plan anything. Millions of years is the curtain behind which these changes supposedly occur, but scientists don’t know.
 
Richca said:
The supposed evolution of dinosaurs into birds or rodents into whales involves a complete overhaul of the whole organism including it seems to me of every physiological or biological system, the skeletal and muscular, respiratory and circulatory, the nervous system including a complete overhaul of the enormously complex brain, novel organs, etc. In my opinion, the whole macro-evolutionary idea is absurd.
Click to expand...
And that’s just for the whale, and the bird add another couple million organisms to the list.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
Have a go at answering your own plant question.
Click to expand...
Sure, God created plants.
Click to expand...
And how did what I saY earlier relate to plants? That was your question. So give it a go…
Click to expand...
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.
Click to expand...
Well done. See, you can do this by yourself. Organisms change slowly to adapt to changing conditions. And then we end up with fish that can fly and fish that can climb trees and birds that can’t fly and birds that can swim and plants that live in water and plants that live in deserts and plants that catch their prey And plants that have edible seeds and plants that don’t and mammals that have live births and mammals that lay eggs and a whole planetfull of diversity.

Just by slow changes over time to adapt to changing conditions. Just like you said.
Click to expand...
Well , that settles it… things evolve.
Click to expand...
Eureka! Can we now please close the thread? The OP has finally got it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top