KnightWhoSaysNi

Perhaps CD would entertain a formal debate on evolution? Perhaps something like "is evolution religion or science?" or "does the evidence indicate common design or common ancestry?"

Just doing my shameless promotion of the FD fora.

- Nightshade, FD Moderator

Charles Darwin

I've already addressed this. The *evolution* position, as hard as it is to swallow, is that the species "just arose." This means that the species arose via the play of natural forces (ie, spontaneously). It doesn't matter what process you want to contrive for it; it doesn't matter what time period you want to make up. But isn't it interesting how evolutionists react when their theory is described as it really is.

Muad'Dib

Um, I'm not an administrator, but does speculation on a user's "real identity" border on violation of privacy? I seem to remember that being an issue at some point...

Edit: I know it's not so much an issue here with Sarfati/Socrates on TWeb, but he's not a registered member here.

caravelair

and which fossils might those be?

as far as i have seen in this thread (although i admit to not having read every single post) you have yet to describe why echolocation is unlikely to evolve, yet you keep bringing this up as an example, over and over. since it seems perfectly obvious to me how such a characteristic could evolve, please explain why you think it could not.


i don't know anything about that phenomenon, but i also don't see how that would contradict evolution in any way. please explain.

what about the fact that "vestigial" does not mean "without function". scientists have NEVER defined it as such. it is the creationists that give it that definition, so that they can have one more precious straw-man argument. for the record, vestigial refers to reduced function. ostrich wings are vestigial, because they are not used for flying. that doesn't mean ostriches don't use them for ANYTHING. perhaps they use them for balance (i'm making this up, but i hope it serves as an example of what i mean). if so, they certainly have a function, but there is no need for a structure as complex as a wing just for balance. wings are for flying. wings used for other things are vestigial.

is there one? please elaborate. anyone else who knows about this, feel free to elaborate aswell.

i know of NOTHING in science which tells us that complexity cannot arise from natural systems. what science are you talking about, exactly? i can't imagine. i thought you had a degree in physics. if so, do you not agree that galaxies can form naturally from large gas clouds? this should be obvious for anyone with an in depth understanding of physics. and do you not agree that a galaxy is a very complex system?

Charles Darwin

No, I do not agree that larger changes logically follow. You are trying to appeal to logic, but in fact you have no logic there. You'd have to insert some more premises.

Other arguments? Yes, indeed. What science tells us is that change to species is generally not something that can just go on to great extents. Lab experiments as well as husbandry have pretty much consistently found that you can play all sorts of games with species, often for a good purpose, but you don't just keep on inducing more and more change. Is the notion impossible? Have we falsified evolution? Of course not. No one knows this much about biology.

Secondly, the DNA changes you refer to are enormous. We're not talking about tweaking a few base pairs here or there. In fact, we don't even understand what all changes are required. They may even include changes exclusive of the DNA molecule. They certainly include more than merely the coding regions. What we do know, however, is that the universe of design options which the random biological variation must find its way through, and which evolution so depends on, is astronomical. The discovery of DNA tells us not that evolution is likely; rather, that it is unlikely. There is no reason for us to believe that evolution is kinetically feasible, even if viable pathways were known to exist.

Thirdly, the adaptation process, which you are co-opting as evidence for macro evolution, is itself phenomenally complex and hardly a random process. Mutations occur in specific areas which allow species to test out meaningful design options; mutational rates are adjusted depending on the need. Evolutionists now speak of "pre-programmed" pathways of change. So if your evolution is true, you must say that random biological variation created an incredible system of adaptation which you then say is evidence for evolution.

Charles Darwin

Thank you for the invitation. Perhaps in the future sometime, but I'm a bit too busy at the moment.

Ken

I apologize if I was infringing on CD's privacy and will not press the issue further.

It would be interesting to see him in a formal debate. My vote is to limit the topic to the question of common descent: Are all living forms descendents of a single ancestor (or a limited number of ancestors)? If Douglas Theobold, author of "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution," could be enticed to take up the debate with him, that would make for a much anticipated event.

Ken

Charles Darwin

I'd prefer not to diverge into cosmology here. There are plenty of problems there too. For purposes of discussion though, I'm sure we can agree that complexity can arise spontaneously; eg, the snowflake. But this pales in comparison to biology.

About vestigial organs, evolutionists have claimed their uselessness as evidence for evolution. But as functions were found, it then became convenient for them to say that the existence of function does not detract from the idea any. Be that as it may; how is it that they are evidence for evolution if they are allowed to have function?

Why does a phenomenally complex adapatation system detract from evolution? C'mon. The whole basis of evolution is that there just happens to exist this pool of random biological variation. Now we're finding that said variation is "preprogrammed", and you are saying this is no problem for evolution?

Why is echolocation unlikely to evolve? Because it is phenomenally complex, thats why? C'mon, what is this, science or astrology? This is what evolution has done to science, turned it into a side show where any crackpot idea becomes fact.

"and which fossils might those be? " You've gotta be kidding me. This idea that there is no evidence contrary to evolution is amazing. I can see that evolution is doing great damage to science. Try looking at the Burgess shale finds. Or how about the placental fossils in Australia (just to name a few).

GunnerJ

Just to remind everyone: if you want to have yet another discussion on Whether Or Not Atheism Is A Religion, please do it in GRD or EoG, not E/C.

Thanks.

Charles Darwin

First, you are speculating on the actions of God, and concluding against Him. In your limited knowledge of biology you have decided you know better. This opens the discussion wide open to all sorts of metaphysical speculation. I could imagine all sorts of metaphysical explanations. At that point any disagreement you would have would be strictly on a religious basis.

Second, you have ignored the explanation that HERVs at homologous sites are there due to some degree of site preference. You have a lot of HERVs, you have some degree of site preference, the result is some end up at homologous loci. When we see some HERVs at at homologous loci, why do we conclude "God wouldn't do that," rather than "there could be some degree of site preference acting here."