Originally posted by Chainmaker
In order to change from one kind, not species, to another, new irreducibly complex features would have to occur, and they don't.
Because there is no such thing. It's often asked, "what good is half a wing?" Well, half a wing is still pretty good for gliding. It's useful for
steering while running around. It's VERY handy for mating displays (Ask an ostrich), and it's still useful for short bursts of hop-flying, which as
goofy as it would look, is still
a pretty good escape method.
One must remember, the proto-wing very possibly was not used as a wing. That's the hangup you guys keep having, the assumption that a dinosaur with
feathery arms would have no use for those feathered arms.
All you have is variation on themes, and no proof of transition between the distinct themes.
Except for fossils, molecular and biological evidence, etc. Your earlier example was that you believe that a leopard, tiger, and housecat were "all
the same thing." That's pretty dang horrible biology on your part - none of these three can breed together and make fertile offspring (The leopard
and tiger could make an infertile hybrid, but both are completely incompatable with the housecat) and are thus, even by the most bare-bones,
stripped-down version of the idea of "species" that even creationists buy, are three different species.
Now, they share a common ancestor. The leopard and tiger share a more recent common ancestor with each other than they do with the housecat. And hte
three do follow what, to our perceptions is a "theme" (they're feline) but internally, molecularly, geographically, and historically, all three are
very very different creatures.
Macro-evolutionary theory is a joke, it is a crutch for non-believers. But since we are arguing religious beliefs, not science, it is very hard
for people to objectively look at the evidence.
I'm just going to let you marinate in the irony here
We are arguing whether or not God actively had a hand in designing creation, and a lot of people have a strong aversion to believing in God so
they will ignore the lack of evidence and call their godless creation theory fact simply for their own religious comfort.
well, if you could show me some evidence of something resembling a god, that would be awesome, and I'd see if it could be worked into the theory. At
this point though, there is simply no evidence of a god - or space aliens, or a virtual reality universe, or what have you for a "designer" - and so
including such a thing adds unnecessary baggage.
The platypus has mammalian, avian, and reptilian DNA, and that blows your theory out of the water right there.
Supposedly mammals evolved from reptiles and birds evolved from dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles. How is DNA from 2 completely divergent lines
avian and mammalian present in the platypus?
Oh, I know, all that DNA was present in the common ancestor. Bullcrap. Avian and Mammalian DNA did not exist until it evolved according to your
theory. Now you will tell me that DNA evolved 3 directions simultaneously in one reptilian common ancestor?
How is it possible? Well, that's easy to answer. It's not, and whoever's telling you that the platypus has "three kinds of DNA" is lying to you
and making you look pig-ignorant. A platypus has platypus DNA.
A Billion gazillion generations of single-celled organisms have been grown in labs for hundreds of years. Not once has any new irreducibly
complex feature been observed forming, much less a multi-cellular organism. You show simple adaptation of a virus to its environment and claim that as
proof that man came from an ape. Ridiculous.
Viruses aren't really alive, and so don't really evolve. They're a weird bunch of somethings. Speaking of though, care to tell me why your god
chose to create the ebola virus, and design it specifically so that it would turn the inside of a human being into blood-and-viscera stew, which is
then expelled in explosive, bloody diarrhea? Being an indian, I also have a few questions about this "smallpox" thing your diety seems to have
thought was a good idea...
Odds are, a multicellular critter hasn't been cooked up in a flask of E. coli bacteria simply because the bacteriologists are too interested in
making them develop what you would call "irreductably complex" features. Such as the ability to digest weird chemicals that previous generations of
bacteria could make no use of. I'm sure that if scientists were to culture bacteria with a focus towards colonies, they could eventually end up with
multicellular somethings similar to a sponge or slime mold within a few decades.
If over millions of years organisms are only rarely fossilized maybe every few tens or hundreds of thousands of years apart, then we should
never find the same species twice, every fossil found should be in a distinct phase of evolutionary flux. It should be a rare event to find a fossil
that matched perfectly any previously discovered fossil as a recognizably same species. Instead we find 50 Triceratops skulls, same exact species, and
I could go on and on with examples.
There are in fact two secure species of triceratops, and seven more possible species. And you'll be delighted to know that among dinosaurs,
are one of the more well-documented and cataloged orders, and their evolution is well-represented in the fossil record (They very politely lived on
plains and in deserts, where fossilization is more likely than in acidic, wet forests)
And all we have is big wide gaps whereever there are your really wild theoretical transitions, the kinds of fossils that are your Holy Grail,
the kinds that would show crystal clear unarguable transition, the so-called missing links. Transitions for whales, bats and humans come to mind. But
there's nothing there except for a long record of frauds and hoaxes, Piltdown Man comes to mind. And still we have "scientists" picking up shards
of bone and creating "reconstructions" of missing links literally based on nothing but their imagination and declaring this to be proven fact. These
men are artistic sculptors and their works should be in art shows not museums.
Yes, Piltdown man was a hoax. Know who proved the hoax to be fale? Sure as heck wasn't creationists - it was other scientists going "Well, now, wait
a minute, that's not right". Piltdown man was expunged, its creator blacklisted, and now only exists on creationist websites.
Unfortunately for you, it's easy to remember piltdown man because it's pretty much the only hoax that took a while to get caught. Pretty much every
other hoaxer who tried was grabbed by the ear, shaken roughly, and thrown out on his ass.
And then there's your worst enemy, the mathematics of chance.
Not at all. Matter of fact, since you're the one who's claiming that every iota of life in the world - and if you're broad-minded enough, the
entire universe, appeared exactly as it is now, with no change or development, in the blink of an infinitely unknowable creator's eye... you should
be the one biting your nails about the mathematics of chance.
The odds of life are, obviously, greater than zero (we know that life exists, obviously - and before you start, evolution is a theory on the process
of life, not a theory of where life came from. abiogenises is three doors down, tell 'em I sent you). We also know that, at least here on earth, life
reproduces primarily by swapping genetic material between organisms - whether it's literal swapping like among the archaea and bacteria kingdoms, or
a recombination to form other organisms sexually. we also know that proteins being what they are, mutations happen.
The chances of recombining mutated DNA and thus producing an organism that is genetically different from its parents are thus not only high, they're
nearly guaranteed. From that point, it's simply a question of whether or not these mutations actually do anything, and if so, whether they help or
hinder the organism. Each mutation is exactly as likely as the first one - nearly 100% chance. Successful (and neutral) mutations live on, deleterious
mutations die out. As these mutations accumulate, the organism obviously changes quite a bit.
The mathematics of chance favor this process vastly more than they favor the odds of an undetectable omnipotent universal being popping everything out
of nowhere in one day
All biological life and the fossil record SCREAMS design to produce the intricate and unbelievably complex machinery all the way down to the
Perhaps if your designer is Homer Simpson, sure.
But despite all this, despite the obvious design all around us, you will deny deny deny and persist in believing your theory and declaring it
to be the infallible Word of Scientific Gods, and your faith in the theory is for purely spiritual reasons, because you don't want to accept that
hated idea of a judgemental God.
Problem is? it's quite fallible - falsifiable. That's what makes it a good theory. Find me a modern rabbit fossilized in precambrian strata, and
you've just debunked evolution. Said bunny hasn't been found yet, but i'm sure a team of god-botherers is out there looking for it.
I know, because I believed in the macro-evolutionary religion for many years. I thank God he woke me up.
I can understand your consternation with it, then, if you believed in it without knowing a single thing about it.