They, like mosquitoes, are the result of the curse of sin.
Mosquitoes, the pollinators of orchids , whose diet is predominantly nectar , are the result of sin? I mean it’s basically only the females that drink blood and they actually rarely drink blood. They drink blood to help with pregnancy. We are sort of their tree of life. Through our blood, and the blood of other animals, we give them new life. We are kind of like mosquitoes surviving on the blood of god……
1 Like
#1 is accepted by practically everyone as incontrovertible and has been defined as beyond the scope of evolutionary biology, so there is no need to rehash that one.
#2 Is the one that, in tandem with #1 takes to an entirely new level a roughly equivalent extent beyond the threshold of miraculous of #1. People who posit that life came about by scoring a chance less likely than picking one atom out of all the atoms in the universe in one try to come about with all right handed amino acids, DNA, RNA, infrastructure, membrane, and replication are truly blown out of the water by #2 if they venture to comprehend it.
If you could give a tenable answer to #2 I would think that evolutionists may deserve a little more credit than I typically extend them. The problem is that all these arguments are seemingly incontrovertible to me. I don’t believe that the theory of evolution could be considered tenable if even a single one remains unanswered.
There’s… a lot that you’ve brought up here. I’m not sure what sorts of things you’ve read or studied up on the topic of evolution, as it seems your personal beliefs are a mix of intelligent design writers and some young-earth creationism. It also seems like your mind could not be changed on the topic of evolution, is that correct? If that’s the case, what are you trying to accomplish with your post?
From my perspective, it looks like very little of your post has much to do with the theory of evolution or the main evidence supporting it. Putting the word “evolutionists” into a C.S. Lewis’ quote when he was fine with evolution himself seems a bit shady too.
8 Likes
Are you saying that abiogenesis is beyond the scope of evolution? I guess it depends on exactly when you believe natural selection begin to play a role in biological evolution. But I’m general abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, are treated as separate studies…. You’re the one who brought it up…. As part of your counter argument for evolution…. So…
You mentioned this “ Complex Specified Information — This is the idea that even if some initial metabolic process were to come about through random processes, the DNA or RNA that codes for the mechanism of those processes would not exist and it would just dissolve, or conversely, if the DNA or RNA existed the epigenetic material would not. “
You said it’s “ is accepted by practically everyone as incontrovertible and has been defined as beyond the scope of evolutionary biology, so there is no need to rehash that one.“
Could you show me what scientific articles are collaborating this from well respected organizations?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue. Having some articles to read by actual scientists would be beneficial for me.
1 Like
First off, I believe God is sovereign. This may help you understand: my nephrectomy. Secondly, I don’t believe all your points are indeed true.
1 Like
I have some questions for you.
Can you explain to me why does the fossil record show humans in the fossil record after we see earlier forms of primates? Like when did bipedalism in primates first show up and was it in the earlier stages such as before the first Simians?
Can you explain to me if humans are mammals? If we are mammals, can you explain to me why we are, or are not primates? Also can you’re plain to me why a dolphin is not a fish?
Sorry, are you saying that mosquitoes didn’t exist before the fall?
6 Likes
*Response to#4
“The Fossil record - In the fossil record we can categorize biological kingdoms, phyla, orders, families, classes, genera, and species. Evolutionists make weak claims to having found intermediate forms between different classes, and there is legitimate variation among genera within each created kind of organism. All kingdoms, phyla, orders, and families of organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record indisputably without intermediate forms.”
I go out and fossil hunt here and there in my spare time (which is basically non-existent in recent days), but one thing that is important to understand is geologic superposition, and not just the features that a fossil has, but also the order in which they’re present in the fossil succession.
So for example, in plants, there are lots of seed bearing plants and lots of flowering plants. And there is a good bit of variation within those groups. But it should be noted that the timing of their appearance is different.
Or another example, you have fish, amphibians, reptiles, and then mammals and birds appearing in the succession, in that order.
So someone could look at tiktaalik and say that it has scales and fins. Well other fish have scales and fins too. So maybe it’s just a weird fish. Tiktaalik has a flat amphibian-like head and it has spiracles for breathing air, an elongated rib cage, robust pectoral girdles, wrist bones (radius and ulna), and an unfused skull/neck for turning its head independent of it’s body, but so do tetrapods, so what’s the big deal? The point is that, it just so happens that if we look at the order in which the succession presents itself, tiktaalik just so happens to be in the Devonian after fish, which appear in the Cambrian, and before tetrapods that dominate the late Devonian. And thus it is “intermediate”.
See the following presentation for more details:
And the same rule applies in genetics as well. So, all fish are genetically more similar (in simple terms), to all amphibians, than they are to any reptile. And all mammals and birds are more genetically similar to all reptiles than to amphibians. Even down to finer levels, all whales are genetically more similar to all other mammals than they are to fish (even though whales and dolphins look kind of like fish). And so, if we turn back to fossils, we might expect whale fossils to first appear around other mammals of the Cenozoic. And they do.
So, it’s not so much just the trait that a fossil has, but it’s really just as important, if not more important, to understand how predictions are made to find those fossils based on the succession.
For more questions about fossils and geology, I’d recommend attending local geological societies and speaking with geologists there. Meetings are free to attend, and it’s an easy way to learn a good bit for those sincerely interested in the science. They often dish out PDHs for attendence too, so rock nerds like myself tend to flock in the same coop.
Geology is also a very deep and rich science as well, not to be confused with surficial topics of “debate”. These little sound bites we hear in arguments are like scratching the tip of the iceberg. Similar to how some people might quote a passage in scripture without understanding it’s context.
Enjoy!
4 Likes
What is quotation and what isn’t? What points are true? Can you give us the first one? You need to edit using Blockquote.
Given the choice between fallacy like Davis’ sharpshooter nonsense and looking out the window, as Anaximander did, there is no choice. I have to know, not believe in, evolution. So no worries. I don’t believe in evolution any more than I believe in quantum mechanics or the accelerating expansion of spacetime. I know that those narratives are the only rational ones.
1 Like
You had me going. “Someone”, I thought, “with thoughtful questions who wants answers”. Ok, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and Lewis was discussing theology but here’s a seeker of truth; let’s cut him some slack. Except you don’t seem interested in discussion; numbers #1 were foregone conclusions on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to personal incredulity. So I took another look and noticed…
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics! Really? That old canard? Unless, of course… are you a PhD in physics with a new take on the subject? Cause, if not, mate, let’s stop right here. If you wanted a soapbox, you only had to say so. But a discussion on this laundry list of tired, old, done-to-death subjects, come off it. The least you could have done was come up with one, just one, original idea.
5 Likes
If you define entropy as ‘cream cheese’, entropy is quite tasty. Entropy is well-defined in physics and chemistry. Evolution obeys natural laws governing entropy just like everything else in the universe.
6 Likes
Why would you want me to come up with an original idea. I have one, #7 I mentioned. I just didn’t include it on account of the fact that the subject matter would make people inclined to think it was a joke. (The evolution of the clitoris, of course the fully formed structure influences mate selection, but a precursor? I don’t think so). An answer to #2 would be nice.
The C.S. Lewis quotes are exactly that. Quotes. If you can think of another application for the quote that starts “In order to think…” I’m all ears. Regardless, the application of the concept is one from which the implications for the “theory” of evolution are ineluctable.
Because “sin” magically created new creatures? How does that work?
3 Likes
Defining entropy as disorder is known as information theory. FYI
We find humans in the fossil record higher because they have only been around since Adam and Eve. We have found many species of Australopithecus, but none that would constitute a missing link between them and Homo Erectus which was essentially humans before their genetic variation had been culled by changes in environment. Homo Erectus appears abruptly.
Stem-amniotes are pretty obviously transitional between fish and amphibians-they still have lateral lines like fish; but have necks, lungs, and a number of other amphibian-like features; a dentition unlike anything else; and the wrong number of toes for anything modern.
Rostroconchs show a pretty obvious transition between something like the early-Cambrian “monoplacophorans” and scaphopods.
Ancestors of kingdoms are going to be old enough that finding them is all but impossible, let alone recognizing them.
Most ancestors of phyla would look like generic worms, and are thus all but impossible to identify. Examples of distinctive, very basal members of phyla seem to include radiodont arthropods and myllokunmingiids.
An obvious example for transition to a class is the long series of non-mammal synapsids.
For orders, the series of fossils intermediate between generic cetungulates and modern cetaceans come to mind.
And an obvious case for transition to a family would be Echinofulgur and the busyconids. And given that Busyconidae seems to fall out closest to Fasciolariidae on genetics, Echinofulgur makes perfect sense as a transition.
4 Likes
Sure, there’s an entropy defined in information theory, but there’s no 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in information theory and there’s nothing whatever in information theory that says that genetic information can’t increase.
4 Likes
Abiogenesis would have to have happened from an evolutionary perspective though. Do you really think that I could not understand an argument for the evolution of sexual reproduction? What is this personal incredulity fallacy you are accusing me of? What is unsubstantiated in my #2? I did not get verbose in #2 so there may be a lot left to interpolate, but I think that I communicated the basic concept. If you venture an attempt to answer it, I don’t need to hear about species that can change gender or females that can reproduce by themselves. I want to know how you propose that the first two organisms of a species were opposite genders. If I can get a tenable evolutionary explanation for that, I’ll be done here.