Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[CaptainPrudeman]

Well, the food chain might not stay the same. It could definitely be forced to change diets if a few prey species dies out.

 

[rossum]

What are the odds of all these random mutations coming together in perfect harmony?

Perfect harmony is not required. A reasonable working harmony is all that is needed. The human spine is not in “perfect harmony” with gravity yet yet the human race survives in spite of bad backs.

 

[Techno2000]

Well, the food chain might not stay the same. It could definitely be forced to change diets if a few prey species dies out.

The different diet is still going to need an ecosystem and food chain to support it.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Which will be constructed by the survivors of that change in climate. What’s your point, exactly?

 

[Techno2000]

What’s your point, exactly?

The odds of this happening.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Here’s the problem with arguments from improbability: It happened. Maybe our existence was a “1 in a trillion chance” (hint: it wasn’t because evolution isn’t based on chance). We are that one in a trillion. It did end up happening.

Still don’t see what that has to do with cold snaps in the Amazon.

 

[Techno2000]

Here’s the problem with arguments from improbability: It happened. Maybe our existence was a “1 in a trillion chance” (hint: it wasn’t because evolution isn’t based on chance). We are that one in a trillion. It did end up happening.

Still don’t see what that has to do with cold snaps in the Amazon.

What are the odds of a perfect climate change to come along and transform an entire ecosystem. The so-called random mutations would have to all line up together in perfect harmony to produce an entirely new cold climate environment.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

What are the odds of a perfect climate change to come along and transform an entire ecosystem.

100%. It’s happened a whole lot before. I can share a few examples, if you want.

The so-called random mutations would have to all line up together in perfect harmony to produce an entirely new cold climate environment.

Evolution isn’t random. It’s predictable if you know the environment and can replicate it. Animals survive because of thicker fat or larger bodies or more fur and feathers. Mutations that cause these things are the reason that creatures survive to reproduce. That’s how evolution works. I don’t see what your point is, because what you’re saying now doesn’t make sense.

 

[Pattylt]

What are the odds of a perfect climate change to come along and transform an entire ecosystem

Your inability to imagine it isn’t the issue. We’re talking thousands and millions of years and at each step, whatever was living at that time was in relative harmony with each other. Anything that wasn’t in harmony, died out. Evolution refers to groups, not individuals. The groups have a variety of mutations and the ones that are beneficial for any slight change in the environment will have more grandchildren. If none of them have any advantages they may be on the path to extinction if the environment changes more than they can adapt. Usually, some have a mutation that can take advantage of the changing environment…food source, less predators, etc. and they continue. This doesn’t have to be an A changes so B must also change…you’re looking at it all wrong if you do so. I think you just don’t want to look at what it’s really about? Do you honestly not understand?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Animals survive because of thicker fat or larger bodies or more fur and feathers. Mutations that cause these things are the reason that creatures survive to reproduce.

What environmental factors would cause the shape of an eye lens to form over 1800 incremental steps?

What factors would cause 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons to evolve?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

What environmental factors would cause the shape of an eye lens to form over 1800 incremental steps?

Photoreceptive cells give advantages to both predator and prey. The better you see, the better you can avoid death by either starvation or being eaten. Camera eyes are just a lot of them packed up and sealed in a small bubble of water that lenses light. It’s the shape that works best, so it’s what provided the most advantageous results. Small, incremental mutations just put more receptors in one place until the eye became more like we think of it today.

What factors would cause 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons to evolve?

Changes in shape require more muscles. Muscles just grew to fit the skeleton, same way they always have. Skeletons changed.

Big numbers make things sound complicated. They really aren’t.

 

[Techno2000]

The better you see, the better you can avoid death by either starvation or being eaten.

They need to survive in the now… not a million years down the road waiting for evolution to do something.

 

[Freddy]

Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

Animals survive because of thicker fat or larger bodies or more fur and feathers. Mutations that cause these things are the reason that creatures survive to reproduce.

What environmental factors would cause the shape of an eye lens to form over 1800 incremental steps?

What factors would cause 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons to evolve?

Eric, after all this time…why don’t you understand this? It’s been explained so many times. The environment doesn’t cause the changes. They are, to all intents, random. That’s the random part of the process. A glitch in the genetic code. An error in copying. Most are detrimental. But if one small change happens to be an advantage in whatever the environment happens to be at the time then whatever organism has that change will likely survive longer and pass on that genetic change.

So if the change means you have a thicker coat of fur and the weather is warmer, then it’s a disadvantage. If the weather is colder, then it becomes an advantage. But the environment is not causing the change.

So the environment doesn’t cause an eye to change. The change is random. And if it’s a disadvantageous change then it won’t survive in the gene pool. If it’s advantageous then it likely will. So it will spread. So it becomes the norm. And then some time later if there is another genetic glitch we rinse and repeat.

And at each stage the disadvantageous changes are lost and the advantageous ones are kept. And the environment will dictate which ones are kept and which one’s aren’t.

Do you understand that?

 

[Buzzard3]

The theory of evolution is a beautiful theory destroyed by facts, lack of facts and internal incoherence.

ToE is useful for explaining changes in gene frequencies within a population, but as for explaining how novel organs arise or explaining the history of life on earth, it’s rather poor. The devoted Darwinist has to embellish the beloved theory with wishful thinking, wild extrapolation, denial of inconvenient facts, fantasy and blind faith in order to keep it afloat.

Proponents merely hand wave these problems away, e.g., the Sisyphean problem, being the latest.

Most of Darwinism 101 is spent learning how to dismiss inconvenient problems with a simple hand-wave or by sticking one’s head in the sand (hand-waving is for more prevalent, mainly because a sand-pit is not always available).

 

[Buzzard3]

Where did you get this idea? Changing climates affect every species. Some species are more able to adapt in their current forms, while others have more drastic changes, but everything is forced to change with climate.

Which experiment demonstrated that a change in climate will produce a novel organ or appendage?

Photoreceptive cells give advantages to both predator and prey. The better you see, the better you can avoid death by either starvation or being eaten. Camera eyes are just a lot of them packed up and sealed in a small bubble of water that lenses light. It’s the shape that works best, so it’s what provided the most advantageous results. Small, incremental mutations just put more receptors in one place until the eye became more like we think of it today.

Darwinist just love their childishly simplistic (not to mention, untestable) explanations for extremely complex biologicial systems.

Where did photoreceptive cells come from? … wait, let me guess, a "mutation’?

 

[Buzzard3]

What environmental factors would cause the shape of an eye lens to form over 1800 incremental steps?

Darwinists need to explain how each one of those 1800 steps conferred a survival advantage to the organism.

The same explanations are required for countless other miracles of ‘evolution’.

Even when Darwinists do offer explanations for these things, none of them can be tested, so the whole exercise is just blowing smoke and doesn’t even qualify as science.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

They need to survive in the now… not a million years down the road waiting for evolution to do something.

Which is why their eyes become more complex. Jimmy with the good eye lives longer than Tommy and wins the prize of being able to mate. Not that complicated.

The devoted Darwinist has to embellish the beloved theory with wishful thinking, wild extrapolation, denial of inconvenient facts, fantasy and blind faith in order to keep it afloat.

Is there an echo in here? Just me?

Which experiment demonstrated that a change in climate will produce a novel organ or appendage?

Climate change would only do that if it conferred a survival advantage. In all likelihood, those would be very detrimental in cold environments.

See the Ice Age movies for more information on how animals adapt to climates. Alternatively, look at elephants or cats.

Darwinist just love their childishly simplistic (not to mention, untestable) explanations for extremely complex biologicial systems.

Or…just a thought…it’s not that complicated?

Even when Darwinists do offer explanations for these things, none of them can be tested

We’ll run the tests when we get the proper environment to do so!

 

[Techno2000]

Which is why their eyes become more complex. Jimmy with the good eye lives longer than Tommy and wins the prize of being able to mate. Not that complicated.

How many millions of years does Jimmy have to wait to have good eyes? Also, what exactly was the environmental factor that caused Jimmy to have good eyes, and Tommy bad eyes?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

How many millions of years does Jimmy have to wait to have good eyes?

Jimmy won’t be alive to have better eyes. Generations later, his descendants may evolve them.

Also, what exactly was the environmental factor that caused Jimmy to have good eyes, and Tommy bad eyes?

Jimmy’s eye growth genes weren’t copied right from his parents, so his body made extra photoreceptors. Tommy’s didn’t. Jimmy survived because of his extra photoreceptors, and Tommy was eaten.

 

[rossum]

What environmental factors would cause the shape of an eye lens to form over 1800 incremental steps?

Light, and the physics of light. Was that really so difficlt?