@dcscccc, are you aware that your posts appear to be breaking up, as in data transmission corruption? There are word fragments and sentence fragments which appear to make no sense, as if entire segments have been removed. As a result, I can’t respond to your last post. It was incomprehensible.
Eddie, you do make an interesting point, that is, who is qualified to speak to a subject. I fear that if we only considered comments from those with doctorates on the subject at hand, it would be a very dry and empty forum. If we expanded that idea, then all preachers should have PhDs in theology. However, as most who lurk here are probably not experts, I think we can learn , listen and contribute at our level of understanding to better see how the puzzle pieces fit. If poor science or poor theology is presented, it is somewhat self corrected and we learn what makes it in error. I have enjoyed these posts, and feel that being open and working out some misconceptions is the most rewarding part of the process. I enjoy learning something I was unaware of more than finding confirmation of what I already thought was true.
yep. i will try again-
so even if all the species created by designer and not evolve from a commondescent- evolution is still true?
the ic systems. because they need at least several parts to work.
How does that correspond to “the family level”?
because its mean that we cant go from one family to another stepwise.
Instead of simply announcing it, tell us WHY one “can’t go” from one family to another stepwise.
You’ve been asked multiple times to explain what obstacle or processes prevent evolution outside of a kind. The Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy is NOT SCIENCE.
Another way to address this issue has been traditionally included in the claim that “Microevolution never progresses to where it is macroevolution, evolution beyond the “kind” or family.” Explain to us what stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution with sufficient generations of genomic changes.
When I was much younger, Young Earth Creationists commonly said that that the Genesis kinds were SPECIES. When it became too obvious (and embarrassing) that scientists observed too many examples of evolution beyond the “species level” and even the “genus level”, “creation science” proponents had to keep moving the goal post and there claims about the *alleged boundaries of microevolution".
Of course, the problem with the claim that no evolution is possible beyond the alleged family “boundary” is that scientists have observed those examples also.
The Theory of Evolution is among the most affirmed theories in all of science because we observe it so clearly and it has survived 150+ years of falsification attempts. If you or anyone else believe that you’ve found evidence to debunk the Theory of Evolution, you should publish it and get ready for your Nobel Prize and tenured position at the university of your choice. (Just as Einstein trumped Newton’s physics, successfully challenging a long entrenched theory by showing its flaws is a great way to fame and success in the science academy.) That’s how it’s done. So why hasn’t anyone done that, @Dcscccc? There’s nothing stopping you or anyone else.
because there is no step wise. again- a minimal eye spot need about several parts to function. therfore it cant evolve stepwise. and therefore animal without an eyespot cant evolve into animal with eyespot.
what test can disprove evoltuion?
maybe because of this reason?:
nobel prize? you wish…
No it doesn’t. It only requires a single cell. There are incredibly simple eyes which have basically just one part, belonging to single celled organisms.
what exactly is this “one part”? give me a reference. thanks.
Please see the image I posted. It even has photos.
i guess they refer to this species:
its funny because its even more complex then an eyespot:
“It’s really interesting that you can get complex eye structures at a subcellular level,”
“While other single-celled creatures can detect light using “eyespots” – simple structures that allow an organism to tell dark from light – the warnowiid seemed to have repurposed its internal organelles to form what resembled the lens, cornea, iris and retina of a complex eye.”
and remember that a simple eyespot contain about 200 parts. so this actually support my argument.
No it does not support your argument. If you read the actual article you will find it says the opposite of your argument. The article explains how this eye provides powerful and clear evidence for the evolution of the eye. It explains this in specific detail. This eyespot doe snot have “about 200 parts”. It has just three parts, and they are incredibly simple. Even more importantly, the eyespot consists of repurposed internal organelles. Do you know what that means?
This is so confusing…let me see if I can summarise your position correctly:
-
You have no training nor experience in evolutionary theory or computer modelling (my inference from your evasiveness and belligerence), but you somehow have sufficient expertise to pronounce Marks’s simulation as more sophisticated than AVIDA.
-
Marks has no experience nor training in evolutionary theory, but that doesn’t prevent him from creating an allegedly more sophisticated simulation than AVIDA, which was created by those who do have experience and training.
-
Neither Behe nor Denton have any training or experience in evolutionary theory, yet you trumpet their contributions—aimed only at laypeople—as superb, despite your own lack of training and experience.
-
Training and experience in empirical aspects of biology has zero relevance in your opinion, because you only go on about “evolutionary theory and computer modelling.” But then where does that leave Behe’s and Denton’s empirical expertise–in your opinion?
Eddie, the only consistency I can see in your pronouncements is that the only criterion of true relevance is agreement with your view. Then no expertise is required. 
2 Likes
not at all. they just believe that its happaned:
"The team suspects that at some point during evolution, a warnowiid ancestor gobbled up some algae and adopted its photosynthetic equipment. "-
so its only a beliefe.
not simple at all (again- even syespot need about 200 proteins- and this system is less complex even according to those scientists). even if it was only about 2-3 proteins its more then what evolution can do. and its not a step wise.
Please read the article. It isn’t just a belief.
Yes it is simple, and 200 proteins is not “200 parts”.
Of course it’s “step wise”, the eyespot consists of repurposed internal organelles. Do you know what that means?
are you serius? protein is a protein.
you welcome to try making a simple camera by combination of exist parts.do you think its possible?
Yes. It is not a “part” of an eye. The eyespot in in that organism does not have “200 parts”. It has three.
Sure. I can repurpose a tin can by drilling a hole in it and using my finger as a shutter. Instant camera. Have you never made a pinhole camera before? It’s simple.