Sigh,
Yes
Better not go there.
Richard
1 Like
What you need to do, Richard, is read a good evolution textbook, then all your doubts will disappear and you’ll become a true (Darwinian) believer. I mean, just look how well that works for all those biology graduates. LOL.
1 Like
It seems that I don’t know how evolution works. How did evolution produce the hollow fangs of a venomous snake? How did evolution produce the poison gland of a venomous snake? How did evolution connect said poison gland to said hollow fangs?
Yeah, my College qualifications are 40 years out of date.
Science has adapted to the criticisms and evolved a stronger response to them
Richard
1 Like
The same way that we can’t describe how trees grow? Or the sun emits light? Or measure the spectrum of a galaxy?
Also, that is insulting to those who work with non-laboratory science, whether astronomy, most of geology that isn’t geochemistry, biology of anything large, etc., etc. It seems patently obvious to me at least that the entire world can be considered a laboratory of sorts, just one that’s difficult to control all the variables in.
The exact mechanisms of evolution are a theory: a scientific descriptor of a part of how the world works, from which specific hypotheses can be derived and tested. That some level of evolution occurs is a fact, as it can be directly observed in bacteria within a lifetime, and from historical records of traits of well-documented species (crops, livestock, people, etc.).
3 Likes
The same way that gravity can be?
1 Like
So, since a sheep dog evolved from a wolf, a mammal can evolve from a fish? I may be stupid, but not stupid enuf to swallow a theory based on that sort of logic.
1 Like
Gravity is not biological evolution. You’re veering off-topic.
And what has gravity got to do with the price of fish?
It’s a scientific theory?
There is absolutely nothing in common between the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity. For a start one can be observed (in full) and one cannot.
Where do you get off on taking offencee? It’s nt as if anyone is questioning all science.
Can’t you see the difference between something that is fullyobservable and evolution? You cannot see the evolution of a fish to anything, let alone a mammal!
Despite watching literally millions of reproducing microbes there has yet to be a new actual creature of any type bred. They are still microbes. They may show changes in resistance to certain environments or stimuli but they are still microbes.
There is no actual proof that an amoeba can ever mutate into anything other than an amoeba, or a fish into anytig other than a fish.
The theory of a single ancestor to all life is fantasy, not fact.
Richard
No. Those are really poor analogies.
Exactly. Why do Darwinists keep throwing up this childishly stupid analogy?
1 Like
Hang on, Richard … I’ve seen tadpoles evolve into frogs and grubs evolve into moths and butterflies … in a matter of a just a few weeks!
1 Like
Careful, someone might take you seriously.
Have you ever watched the growth of a human embryo? I am told it is evolution in a nutshell (or nine months at least)
I guess it just depends on how you interpret empirical data. (But don’t let a scientist see you questioning this)
Richard
This is heresy! Do you want to be banished to the outer darkness forever, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth???
But seriously, my understanding is that the fossil record reveals, not a single tree of life that connects all phyla, but something more akin to an orchard of separate trees with no connections between phyla.
Yes … I was right there, on the spot … but I don’t remember what I saw. Sorry.
So God started each little tree? What a suggestion!
Richard
Reminds me of Dobzhansky’s essay, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973), in which he claims human embryos have “gills”, which are evolutionary remnants of our fish ancestors.
Embarrassingly for that much-revered Darwinist, it turned out that the “gills” were just folds of skin.
Yes, I realise that it’s outrageous for a Christian to even suggest such a thing …
1 Like
Embarrassingly, They are not just folds of skin, but structures that develop into other structures such as middle ear bones and jaw bones. They are never gills, as you state, but are similar to the same features that develop into gills in fish.(Learning about evolutionary history - Understanding Evolution)
3 Likes
You’re funny and just making things up – why? Maybe you’re desperate to retain your false belief. What makes you think I’m in the least bit desperate to believe it or that I even wanted to believe it?
Two things, no, three things combined to change my mind. I was an OEC for about three decades (and a YEC but not a noisy one for decades before that).
- ID is not scientific
- “…the most common mutations, transitions, are not really ‘copying errors,’ because the keto-enol transition of the base is driving them and the polymerase is working correctly. So if you’d like, that can be seen as providence more than chance.” John Mercer, molecular biologist
- The obvious sovereignty of God’s providence in the timing and placing of mutations in DNA before my nephrectomy.
Add a fourth:
- Five short of fourscore years of experience of my Father’s providences in my life, a small multitude of instances – I keep a log to enumerate them. Some of them fun, some are hard, some startling, but all are wonderful and all are good, even the hard ones.
2 Likes