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

[rossum]

The arch is inorganic and not organic.

Irrelevant. The definition of irreducible complexity makes no reference to organic or inorganic.

If you want an organic example then look at a Venus Flytrap, that is irreducibly complex, yet it evolved. Venus Flytraps are in the same clade as Sundews. Both catch insects. Sundews catch them with sticky sap and close slowly to enfold the insect for easier digestion. They take minutes to close, so they need their sticky sap to hold in insect in place.

Now speed up the closing. The sap doesn’t need to be quite so sticky, so it can be a bit better at the digestion part. Speed up a bit more: less sticky and more digestion. Continue down this route and you get a Venus Flytrap. Insects are caught on speed alone, not with sticky sap. The sap is entirely specialised for digestion.

That is how we get irreducible complexity. There was an essential component during development: sticky sap to hold the insect in place. That component is no longer required for a fast trap, so has been abandoned, leaving an irreducibly complex system, similar to a mousetrap. In effect the sticky sap was like scaffolding, which is only needed while the arch is being built and can then be removed. The sticky sap was only needed while the trap closed slowly.

 

[stoplooklisten]

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity.

There are a total of 6 extrinsic ocular muscles responsible for the manipulation of eye movements. The margin of the optic foramen, which is positioned along the rear of the orbital cavity, yields five of the six muscles involved. Signals through the optics nerves coordinate the movement of both eyes (up, down, left, right) using the 6 extrinsic ocular muscles via signals from the brain through the optic nerves.

None of this works unless all of this works. It is irreducibly complex. RMNS could not design and implement this. For speculation like that, the facts just done fit the (evolutionary) theory.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Image source: Ocular muscles - human anatomy organs

 

[Freddy]

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity.

There are a total of 6 extrinsic ocular muscles responsible for the manipulation of eye movements. The margin of the optic foramen, which is positioned along the rear of the orbital cavity, yields five of the six muscles involved. Signals through the optics nerves coordinate the movement of both eyes (up, down, left, right) using the 6 extrinsic ocular muscles via signals from the brain through the optic nerves.

None of this works unless all of this works. It is irreducibly complex. RMNS could not design and implement this. For speculation like that, the facts just done fit the (evolutionary) theory.

Ophthalmoplegia is a condition that causes paralysis of those muscles. The eye sill works.

The evolution of the eye is an easily understood and comprehensively detailed process.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Ophthalmoplegia is a condition that causes paralysis of those muscles. The eye sill works.

The evolution of the eye is an easily understood and comprehensively detailed process.

Is that dogma by assertion? May be you’d like to repeat it over and over again? You can say it 100 times but it still won’t make it true. Random mutation is not a design mechanism. Natural selection is not a design mechanism. Neither mechanism works to match up the left and the right in symmetry. Why aren’t the left and right different if they’re both accidents? Accidental design doesn’t make logical sense an doesn’t fit the facts of consistent symmetry.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Ophthalmoplegia is a condition that causes paralysis of those muscles. The eye sill works.

The evolution of the eye is an easily understood and comprehensively detailed process.

Is that dogma by assertion? May be you’d like to repeat it over and over again? You can say it 100 times but it still won’t make it true.

Well, I can link to umpteen articles that will explain it for you. Saying it won’t make it true but studying the evidence will lead to that conclusion. Unless you have some evidence to the.contrary?

And if asymetry is beneficial, then it will evolve. There are plenty of examples. Likewise symetry will evolve if it confers an advantage.

 

[stoplooklisten]

And if asymetry is beneficial, then it will evolve. There are plenty of examples. Likewise symetry will evolve if it confers an advantage.

Where are the examples of asymmetry that was tried for a while until natural selection replaced it with symmetry?

It seems like you have your own faith in “auto-magic” evolution that produces outcomes that look like there were designed (because they were designed).

 

[stoplooklisten]

And, how would left foot / left eye / left anything, know what the right side is doing?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And if asymetry is beneficial, then it will evolve. There are plenty of examples. Likewise symetry will evolve if it confers an advantage.

Where are the examples of asymmetry that was tried for a while until natural selection replaced it with symmetry?

It seems like you have your own faith in “auto-magic” evolution that produces outcomes that look like there were designed (because they were designed).

Haven’t you seen pictures of the skelton of ‘Lucy’, the Australopithecus afarensis found some years back. There’s only one leg. It’s assumed her line died out because of it.

Now we have two. Ain’t evolution wonderful!

 

[rossum]

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity.

No it is not irreducibly complex, your source is lying to you. There is a very obvious biological example in the Nautilus’ eye, which lacks both the lens and cornea of the human eye yet still functions well enough for Nautilus to survive.

Why do you believe sources that lie to you? Especially when those lies are easily refuted by the facts.

Apart from anything else, the effort you put into your posts here is wasted because you are copying obvious lies, obvious to us anyway, so we instantly reject what you say. An argument based on false premises fails, and in this case your first line contains a false premise.

 

[stoplooklisten]

A mouse trap is irreducibly complex. One part by itself won’t catch any mice. A motor vehicle is irreducibly complex. Engine, transmission, wheels won’t get you anywhere by themselves. The eye of the nautilus won’t see anything unless multiple coordinated body systems keep the nautilus alive.

You’re imagining “my sources”. I do research information. You do too. I also think for myself. You do too.

By the way, per my source, nautilus do not see well. Source: Nautilus - Wikipedia

Truth has power. Supernatural grace has power. Despite its humble beginning of Twelve men without college degrees, the Church has continued to grow across 21 centuries and all the continents. North Korea has a Catholic Church. See: Changchung Cathedral - Wikipedia . As people have been praying across 21 centuries, Christ’s Kingdom will come and His Will shall be done on earth as it is done in heaven.

 

[mcq72]

Our genetic links prove we have common ancestors with whales. Drawing the family tree is harder than finding this knowledge just as it is if you find a cousin on Ancestry.com .

Kindly disagree. We are good at observation. Like monkeys have two eyes therefore we must have similar origin to monkeys. A tricyle has wheels and so does Rolls. Did Rolls evolve from tricycles? Yes we are brilliant in observing the paired eyes or what has wheels, or even similarities in dna. It’s our deductions that are questionable, prejudicial.

 

[FiveLinden]

Kindly disagree. We are good at observation. Like monkeys have two eyes therefore we must have similar origin to monkeys. A tricyle has wheels and so does Rolls. Did Rolls evolve from tricycles? Yes we are brilliant in observing the paired eyes or what has wheels, or even similarities in dna. It’s our deductions that are questionable, prejudicial.

So you reject the science of genetics? You believe all the court cases decided on the basis of comparison of genetic material are flawed? You think the tracing of the COVID-19 virus through changes in its genome are wrong? You think genetic engineering isn’t an issue because it doesn’t’t work? All these things are the same science that identifies our relationship with other living things. It’s a fact. It does not mean there was not a creator. But it does mean that either the creator did not create individual species directly or the creator has perpetrated a hoax making things appear to have evolved when they did not. I think for a Catholic the first is a more acceptable belief!

 

[rossum]

By the way, per my source, nautilus do not see well. Source: Nautilus - Wikipedia

They see well enough to have survived since the time of the dinosaurs. That is all that evolution needs: well enough.

Can you see light polarisation like a bee? Can you see into the ultra-violet like some birds? No you cannot. Compared to them you do not see well, but you see well enough to function as a human.

 

[Freddy]

FiveLinden:

Our genetic links prove we have common ancestors with whales. Drawing the family tree is harder than finding this knowledge just as it is if you find a cousin on Ancestry.com .

Kindly disagree. We are good at observation. Like monkeys have two eyes therefore we must have similar origin to monkeys. A tricyle has wheels and so does Rolls. Did Rolls evolve from tricycles? Yes we are brilliant in observing the paired eyes or what has wheels, or even similarities in dna. It’s our deductions that are questionable, prejudicial.

It’s your deduction that is questionable in this case. You are talking about two things having a common ancestor and then discussing one thing evolving from another as a comparison.

Anything with wheels can trace it’s evolution back to the very first invention of the wheel. Maybe simply a log used as a roller (see what I did there?).

 

[mcq72]

All these things are the same science that identifies our relationship with other living things. It’s a fact

Totally agree. I mean we have relationship with any carbon based life… yes we share many features like eyes, limbs, hair/skin and much of our genes.

It does not mean there was not a creator.

That is a good start between us, but unfortunately not with everyone. For some evolution is way of explaining a Godless creation or an agnostic approach.

But it does mean that either the creator did not create individual species directly or the creator has perpetrated a hoax making things appear to have evolved when they did not. I think for a Catholic the first is a more acceptable belief!

now there you go and spoil discernment of agreed upon facts with prejudicial deductions. With such rationale you can wipeout man’s engineering also. Like if man were no more on planet Earth visitors to our planet would see all our man made things and cry out “evolution” due to similarities (tricycle, bicycle, cars, train, plane…all have wheels ).

The facts are not at odds with God making different species with similarities. After all, we only invented the wheel once and the rest is history to it’s many uses.

PS just read post above from Freddy, who used wheel analogy also lol, but i did use it in my first post not seeing others…such a simple analogy many can easily grasp it…cool

 

[Freddy]

FiveLinden:

But it does mean that either the creator did not create individual species directly or the creator has perpetrated a hoax making things appear to have evolved when they did not. I think for a Catholic the first is a more acceptable belief!

now there you go and spoil discernment of agreed upon facts with prejudicial deductions. With such rationale you can wipeout man’s engineering also. Like if man were no more on planet Earth visitors to our planet would see all our man made things and cry out “evolution” due to similarities (tricycle, bicycle, cars, train, plane…all have wheels ).

And they’d be right. All those modes of transport evolved from earlier means. Intentionally in this case. But the principle is the same. Start with something simple and if it changes in some way and the change is beneficial, then keep it. If it’s neutral then carry on. If it has a negative effect then cease production.

I’d bet a chunk of money that a lot of people had realised that principle a long time before Darwin. And maybe associated it with living organisms and realised that perhaps that accounted for the diversity of life that we have. But Charles was one of the first to formulate a theory based on those observations. He worked out how God had done it and tied it in to the evidence.

 

[FiveLinden]

I’d bet a chunk of money that a lot of people had realised that principle a long time before Darwin. And maybe associated it with living organisms and realised that perhaps that accounted for the diversity of life that we have.

A number of belief systems derided as ‘animist’ by theists are based on an understanding of the common descent of living things. Across the Tasman from you Māori traditional beliefs are like this. Not sure about indigenous people in Australia but similar elsewhere in Polynesia.

 

[Rau]

That which He has revealed are the only certain truths. All the rest is merely provisional.

Has God revealed the physical age of the universe and the Earth through Scripture? Does the Church hold a “young earth” to be divinely revealed?

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

That which He has revealed are the only certain truths. All the rest is merely provisional.

Has God revealed the physical age of the universe and the Earth through Scripture? Does the Church hold a “young earth” to be divinely revealed?

o_mlly’s reluctance to be drawn on this question will outlast the very forum in which it has been asked so many times…

 

[mcq72]

And they’d be right

but they would be wrong if they said there was no man, that these things came by themselves, and not by design of man…wrong.

He worked out how God had done it and tied it in to the evidence.

well, not so sure…he may have been a theist at first for a spell, but i thought he was agnostic thereafter.

Again, the observations are fine, the deduction’s are prejudicial. My prejudice is that God could have planned every last iota of the universes actions and reactions, and did…by Him all things exist…He holds all things together ( and not just my car, but every atom).