Yes, this snake-venom system I linked to above is a good example that provides evidence of how seemingly complex adaptions don’t need to spring into existence out of nowhere and nothing. Rather, evolution works on what is available (pre-existing dentine ridges in all snakes that strengthen the teeth in their sockets). From there, changes may be gradual over time, as the ridges took on a new function in venomous species, becoming more elongated for venom delivery. Seems like another so-called “irreducibly complex” gap has been closed…
3 Likes
One of article I read also commented how the fangs developed as grooves, that gradually folded over to leave the void in the middle. And how the venom was modified saliva, so easy to see how it could all come together. The developmental origin can be seen in studies of embryology as the teeth develop and can give hints as to how they evolved.
3 Likes
There are lots of your posts above – which one? The one immediately above? The logically developed, scientifically supported and well-thought-out little rant? 
What is basic that you refuse to let penetrate your blindered logic(?) is that we have no problem whatsoever talking aetheistic meteorology science because meteorology is aetheistic. So is arithmetic and how you tie your shoes. Your conjoining your theology with the purely physical and refusal to make the distinction between methodological science and religion is perfectly illustrative of what @St.Roymond is talking about. So maybe we should thank you for being so exemplary! 
Who needs a smokescreen to disguise reality from the severely visually impaired?
Yes, the rant. Look and learn. The truth will set you free.
1 Like
I am truly free beyond all merit, shielded by my Father’s arms and trusting in his providence. And looking is exactly how good science is done and learning achieved.
1 Like
(That is the cliché-ridden and vapid kind of response we sadly have to expect from denialists and logically-blinded idolators of eisegesis.)
1 Like
If you really think that either of these is similar to evolution you really do not understand science.
Richard
1 Like
Do you really understand irony? 
Please explain again how evolution is fundamentally different than meteorology? (I admit, I am slow to understand.)
2 Likes
Sgh,
Apart from it not being in conflict with Scripture? (Unless you are claiming God controls the minutia)
Meteorology is fully observable both the causes and the effects.
Evolution is not. You cannot observe the changes it claims (the big ones any way).
Evolution cannot be proven for certain, meteorology can and has been.
Meteorology can be predicted with a certin amount of accuracy and certainty while the whole point of evolutionary theory is to try and prove the suggested results.
Richard
1 Like
Not true. You don’t know what molecule disturbed by the gasping butterfly in the polluted atmosphere of Beijing initiated the hurricane that struck the Bahamas. Identify and try and prove it.
I don’t know why ToE is so important to them. Their dogmatic obsession with ToE reminds me of the atheists I’ve come across online.
I’m happy to accept the history of life as reflected in the fossil record as a mystery.
The good news is, being dogmatically obsessed with ToE and hanging a big photo of Charles Darwin on your bedroom wall won’t stop one from inheriting the kingdom of Heaven.
Your words cut like a knife.
Do you understand the difference between empirical and theoretical science?
1 Like
That is an urban myth not provable science (But it would be more in line with evolutionary science)
Meteorology is basically about high and low barometric pressures and the reactions to them. The notion that a butterfly could affect atmospheric pressure is very far-fetched. A human breath would have the same effect and a sneeze would be devastating.
Richard
I guess there is a need to try and explain them.
At a basic level fossils are just a record of creatures that have existed. The major change from the Dinosaur age is one of the things evolution avoids by claiming an external force (meteor)
Theologically the Dinosaurs can be a stumbling block, especially to YEC. But for evolution it causes a different problem, that being why mammals took over and whether there were actually mammals around during the age of the Dinosaurs.
The traditional theory is that it is easier and quicker to develop a reptile as opposed to a mammal. Insects developed earlier for the same reason, but whether you can actually develop a six foot insect is still very debatable (or is that era no longer a part of history?)
Anyway, if the meteor wiped the lot out, why didn’t the reptiles just start over and dominate again?
There are still reptiles and they are evolutionarily developed.
The problem with TOE as I see it, is that it is trying to be complete and exclusive of any other developmental force, be it God or some other factor not yet found (or probably looked for) It has become the proverbial cure-all (develop-all)
Richard
1 Like
The bad news is you are still using silly and immature denialist exaggerated language and attributing things to people who understand the science which are more reflective of yourself.
1 Like
Yes.
1 Like
Who would have thought a single ping pong ball could trip a zillion mouse traps (extrapolating a smidge ; - ). I wonder if Richard’s part of we has trouble comprehending chain reactions, say like nuclear fission (so very far-fetched).
No one is saying that every butterfly in Beijing initiates a hurricane nor that a sneeze initiates thousands. But please try and understand the concept… never mind, don’t trouble yourself – it’s too much like mouse traps.
Ha! There you go again with your obsession with extremist language! It might have something to do with truth and not making Christianity and the God of Christianity laughingstocks before the world, repulsing many? If it’s so unimportant, why are you so obsessed with denying it? As @St.Roymond aptly points out, the Bible implies it.
Multiple deaths due to factors external to individuals is pretty unremarkable and the existence of such event is hardly something that evolution exclusively claims. Not a strong argument, Richard.
It’s no problem whatsoever if you’re a denialist:
And you are still clueless about how evolution works. That there are still reptiles has already been explained (oh, the futility of our efforts ; - ), at least in principle (I could probably find where if I needed to – was it you, Timothy, @Paraleptopecten?). Their niche in the biosphere still exists, they are well adapted to it, and there has been no extinction event affecting them.
Well, at least you @RichardG and @Buzzard do not deny the antiquity of the earth and cosmos. Speaking of which, maybe cosmology would be a better science to compare to evolution to help you understand. Shall we try that, since you cannot see the comparison to meteorology (since it is so obviously irrelevant to atheistic evolution 
)? How is evolution different than atheistic cosmology? (It deals with past events and predictions just like meteorology, but oh well.)
1 Like