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.
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
So, I guess that blow hole thingy just kinda slowly formed by trial and error. :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
You guess wrong. A blow hole is a pair of nostrils. We have a sequence of fossils showing the nostrils moving from the front of the snout to the top of the head.
Click to expand...
Let’s get specific. Nothing is moving.


We have a sequence of individual fossils/pictures which our mind puts together as an illusion of movement.

The poster commented that trial and error, the random mutation of DNA strands, constrained by natural selection is held to be responsible for the creation of the whale within the story told by evolution.

More plausible, among other possibilities, is that a kind of creature was created having specific physical and psychological attributes. Those ceatures possessing the possibility of genomic alterations through built-in genetic and epigenetic physical properties, all the while dreaming of gliding through the waves, plunging to the ocean’s depths and surging out into the air, would seek out suitable mates that would lead to the fulfillment of their instinctive desire.

And, who is the source of our existence, our material being and our desires?
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
So, I guess that blow hole thingy just kinda slowly formed by trial and error. :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
You guess wrong. A blow hole is a pair of nostrils. We have a sequence of fossils showing the nostrils moving from the front of the snout to the top of the head.

rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, and the artist rendering of all this does seem to support your case.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hugh_Farey:
“life only comes from life … and no time after [the first living thing].”
Click to expand...
means life never arose again spontaneously after the very first time.
Click to expand...
The conditions were only perfect the first time and at no time since, which is odd because the conditions at the time were not very hospitable for life, but have been much better since. So you’d think life ought to be spontaneously arising much more frequently when the conditions are more hospitable than when they are not, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

I suppose the retort to that is that the required conditions to kick life off must be quite different from the conditions to keep it going. It is difficult to see why those conditions would need to be different, however.
 
That is not correct , there is no new species since the time of creation not a single one all species living today that are found in fossils are no different from then to now, so where do you get this claim from?

“So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…”

Exactly what facts, Give us one fact about evolution that proves it to be true just one and you will win me over.
Evolution is a lie it is proven to be a lie and a doctrine of atheists who are at war with God have you not read your bible?
Eve is the mother of all living Humans and she is from the side of Adam just as the church is from the side of Christ, Adam was not an immaculate conception, there is no proof not one single proof that other humans lived apart from the children of Eve and her Mitochondrial dna prove she is 6000 years old as well as Y chromosome adam. You and many like you have fallen for a doctrine of evil and are being influenced by the enlightenment movement who have set them selves up to be Gods, so be careful when you hear whispers of did God really create this way in seven days? surely modern man knows better, I can tell you that the church has always taught a literal creation and never millions of years old from slime or whatever other theory they make up when the old theories are found to be bull.
 
HarryStotle said:
The conditions were only perfect the first time and at no time since, which is odd because the conditions at the time were not very hospitable for life, but have been much better since. So you’d think life ought to be spontaneously arising much more frequently when the conditions are more hospitable than when they are not, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

I suppose the retort to that is that the required conditions to kick life off must be quite different from the conditions to keep it going. It is difficult to see why those conditions would need to be different, however.
Click to expand...
Conditions were different before the fall and after. God saw it was “good”. Corruption, death and decay came into play after the fall.
 
HarryStotle said:
… It is difficult to see…
Click to expand...
I highlight these words because these words, or words to the same effect, are at the heart of every anti-evolution arguement I have ever seen. Think about the “minimum irreducible complexity” arguement. It says "I don’t see how it is possible for structure X to have evolved because I don’t see how any possible intermediate step could have conferred a reproductive advantage. " We saw this arguement briefly implied above regarding blowholes. Think about the “missing fossil record” arguement, which says “I have not seen fossils for the needed intermediate forms.” And now we have the arguement against abiogenesis. It says “I don’t see how the conditions for forming the building blocks of organic molecules could be different from the conditions that are favorable to its continuation.” In every case the argument is based in the inability to see or understand something.

I posit that all such arguements are unscientific. More than that, they are not logical. This is not to say that the person making the argument is any less knowledgeable than others in the field. It is an illogical arguement even if no one sees or knows the missing data.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
More plausible, among other possibilities, is that a kind of creature was created…
Click to expand...
Plausible? How plausible is an omniscient entity? Have you any idea how much information there is in an omniscient entity? Start with the complete DNA sequence of every individual organism that has ever and ever will live. You are proposing just about the least plausible solution to the problem.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Like the flounder?
Click to expand...
That, and some other flatfish whose eyes have moved. Skates and rays use a much more obvious solution of lying on their stomachs (rather than on their side) and so don’t have to move their eyes much.

Another piece of ludicrous design by the not-very-intelligent designer, who already had a better solution available.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Another piece of ludicrous design by the not-very-intelligent designer, who already had a better solution available.
Click to expand...
Poor design is still design. However, one must know the mind of the designer and you do not, therefore you are not qualified to criticize the design.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Another piece of ludicrous design by the not-very-intelligent designer, who already had a better solution available.
Click to expand...
Poor design is still design. However, one must know the mind of the designer and you do not, therefore you are not qualified to criticize the design.
Click to expand...
'OK guys, we just need to revise what we learnt last week before we move on. So hands up - who can remember the response we must always use when someone points out an obvious flaw in the arguments we use against those who reject Intelligent Design? Anyone?

‘Sir! Sir!’

‘Ah yes. Buffalo. Indeed. You more than anyone else might need to use this on a regular basis. And it is…?’

'Sir, it’s “We weren’t there so no-one can know!” ’

‘Good grief, man. Have you learnt nothing? Tell him, Ed’.

'Yes sir. Sir, it’s ‘Who can know the mind of God!’

‘Well done, lad. Buffalo, stay behind after class and write that out a hundred times.’
 
Gosh; that was going back a bit.

Anyway, I don’t think one wants to be too dogmatic about the initial conditions for the spontaneous development of self-replicating organelles from non-replicating chemicals. A variety of different environments could have given rise to a variety of self-replicating organelles, and, although the composition of the atmosphere has changed enormously since they began, there is no reason why similar conditions do not exist now, underwater, and maybe abiogenesis is re-occuring too.

However, the question is - what happened next? It appears that by luck or efficient adaptation the lifeform we are familiar with outperformed any others, and probably continues to outperform any others, such that we have no evidence that they ever existed at all.

You are, of course, quite wrong in thinking that “the conditions at the time were not very hospitable for life, but have been much better since.” It seems that an atmosphere without oxygen was particularly favourable for life, which has had to struggle against, and adapt to, the immensely destructive effects of oxygen as soon as its atmospheric content became high enough. That may indeed be an important, possible the most important, reason why other forms of life are not commonly found today.
sevenswords said:
That is not correct , there is no new species since the time of creation not a single one all species living today that are found in fossils are no different from then to now. [etc.]
Click to expand...
Bless you, sevenswords, but your post is wholly incorrect. Species have evolved in abundance since the spontaneous development of the first living thing from non-living material, as demonstrated in abundance by the fossil record. Sadly most of what you say is too incoherent to make much sense, but what does make sense is not only wrong, but badly misjudges the nature of evolutionists, and, indeed science in general. I think you would be more persuasive if you concentrated more on demonstrating the truth of your beliefs (if that is possible), rather than inventing mischaracterisations of those who disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
'OK guys, we just need to revise what we learnt last week before we move on. So hands up - who can remember the response we must always use when someone points out an obvious flaw in the arguments we use against those who reject Intelligent Design? Anyone?
Click to expand...
Understanding the designers intent is well understood even in even human designs. Usually one is able to ask the designer. Ask an electronics designer why he uses a off the shelf standard counter with more features than he needs rather than a more specific one in his computer design.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
"I don’t see… "
Click to expand...
Because you do not have. No one has shown the vast number of minute steps to get to the ATP synthase motor for example. We just know it had to be evolution that didddit. If you did you would produce. Another strike…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top