Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And we also know that random mutation is a creative process
No we do not. The odds of a successful beneficial mutation are extremely low. They are very rare. In addition, they break other parts of the system and devolve the organism so it is less able to adapt.
 
Last edited:
System integration in humans is highly complex. Again, the proposed explanation is not credible.

Try to add a part to your car that is the wrong shape or the wrong size. Close enough will not work.
 
The odds of a successful beneficial mutation are extremely low.
So, show us your calculations please. Numbers picked from thin air will not convince anyone.

Still no evidence of any deity creating a new species.

People reading this thread will start to notice that one side produces a lot of evidence while the other side has little supporting evidence and mostly snipes at the evidence their opponents produce. Even when evidence is produced is contains statements about millions of years and similar, which go against a young, 6,000 year old earth.
 
Close enough will not work.
If it is close enough then it obviously works: close enough to do the job. If it des not work then it is not “close enough” obviously.

You need to think your examples through more carefully, ed.

Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. That is 2.3 x 10^93 different parts that are “close enough”.

Still no evidence of any deity creating a new species. Colour me unsurprised.
 
Your ‘no deity’ stance has been noted. More atheism will not help your case.
 
Your ‘no deity’ stance has been noted. More atheism will not help your case.
Please read for comprehension. I was looking for evidence of any deity creating a new species.

Your side is very obviously lacking evidence. Science has evidence in abundance. Where is your evidence, ed? Where and when did a deity create a new species?

As to atheism, my scriptures have a lot more gods than yours. Numerically, you are a lot closer to atheism, just one God away.
 
Oh well… in that case. I mean, it’s been explained to me and the mechanism would have to be perfect to work as described. Or the mechanism keeps pumping out creatures that may or may not survive depending on how mismatched they are with their environment. But a process that has no foresight? That’s not credible.
 
hales walked on land and then began swimming… Well, now that the ocean is polluted, shall we see them coming back out? Maybe that’s why they beach themselves…
Excellent points. I thought beaching whales were those that longed for the days when their ancestors were land-lubbers, but your explanation is better. Did you know the evolutionary ancestors of submarines were whales?
 
Exhibit A: the very first creatures that appeared on earth billions of years ago
Take a number, join the queue and wait for your number to be called. Currently you are behind abiogenesis and space aliens.

Abiogenesis has amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and more. Where are your deity-produced amino acids?
 
Punctuated equilibrium
That the features, which define a species, tend to be stable, is something found in the historical and fossil records. While finches may show variation in their appearances, reflecting how they interact with their environment, as do tortoises and iguanas, the kind of living being that something is, remains constant. We have dogs of all kinds of shapes, sizes and temprament, reflecting the breeding that we’ve done, which is of course based on human psychology, our wants and knowledge. Punctuated equilibrium is a feature of microevolution, where very few changes occur over the generations of a type of creature, be it a finch, a lion or olive tree, as it participates in a stable environment.

The creation of different kinds of living things, following that of their constituent building blocks - the material universe, came to an end with the creation of mankind.
 
Last edited:
I was looking for evidence of any deity creating a new species.
We do that looking into ourselves, what we are. There is no greater, more certain evidence than that. If we are unable to see it in all creation, we can extrapolate that as we each of us exists as an expression of humankind, so too does everything else, in itself and as part of some greater system. Ultimately, we are one humanity, united in love and broken among and within ourselves, through sin.
 
Science has actual real amino acids. You have a video.

Does James Tour deny that the Miller-Urey experiment produces amino acids? No he does not. Does he deny that the many repetitions of that experiment with varying conditions have also mostly produced amino acids? Again, no.

You still have no evidence of any deity producing amino acids. Science has had them for almost seventy years.
 
We do that looking into ourselves, what we are. There is no greater, more certain evidence than that. If we are unable to see it in all creation, we can extrapolate that as we each of us exists as an expression of humankind, so too does everything else, in itself and as part of some greater system. Ultimately, we are one humanity, united in love and broken among and within ourselves, through sin.
I’m sorry, but that is not evidence of a deity creating a new species. It is theology, not science. It is not scientific evidence.
 
You most likely did not watch it.
  1. That is not an answer to my question, which was rhetorical.
  2. That is not evidence of any deity creating a new species, or indeed even something as simple as an amino acid.
Science has evidence, a lot of evidence. I am noticing a distinct lack of evidence from your side, buffalo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top