Doubting Didymus

What, then, is your explaination for the fully formed avian teeth present in the embryos? Do bird teeth just happen to be a by product of avian 'building block' genes? Isn't that something of a coincidence?

I suppose you have just such a unique 'take' on all peer reveiwed scientific papers that appear to support evolution.

Charles Darwin

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's just be frank. You don't have the details. In fact, you don't have the foggiest idea whether such a thing could really evolve. You have no idea how many intermediates there would be; what and how many mutations are required to get you along the path; what the fitness improvement would be of those intermediates; what the probability of them becoming fixed (ie, widespread in the population) is; etc., etc. For this, and a thousand other examples of high complexity, you are in the dark. Yet you claim the theory is a scientific fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are wasting your breath because you are not addressing my point. We know murder happens. Powerful, though not direct, evidence of murder can be acceptable, because there isn't a highly unlikely and speculative phenomena at the core of the theory.

What is my point exactly? C'mon! You say the most complex things know arose by themselves, it occurred in a black box leaving us without being able to know how it possibly could have occurred. We don't have the foggiest idea whether such a thing could really evolve. We are to take it on faith. And you ask what is my point?

Doubting Didymus

The phenomena at the heart of common descent is neither speculative or unlikely. We know it works, we've seen it work, there are robust computer models showing it in action. We know it happens, so your words are hollow when you whine about the possibility that it didn't happen in this one instance: bats.

You are all bluster. Evolutionary biologists have a theory that is generally considered by the scientific community to have fewer holes than the theory of gravity. We know for a fact that all life has a common ancestor. We have a robust theory that explains how it happened, that stands unchallenged by any contending theories after 150 odd years. The only place faith comes into it is to blind the eyes and stop the ears of those who feel their religion is threatened.

Yes, I ask what is your point. I pointed out quite specifically that you can't refute common descent by pointing to areas where knowledge is incomplete, same as in a murder trial. Your response is nothing more than "but I don't like the theory at the heart of common descent." Really, you have no point.

Charles Darwin

If you had been following this thread you would know that what I have "mustered" is scientific problems with evolution. What would pose a problem for creationism. I've already answered this several times. One more time: A compelling scientific theory of the naturalistic origins of the species.

Doubting Didymus

What, your probability calculations? Here's another thing you've been asked several times: what have you actually read or studied that deals with evolutionary theory?

Fine. Great. But theres a problem there. The theory we have is compelling. It compels the majority of christians worldwide. It compels nearly every biologist on the planet. Surely you don't mean that it has to compel every person in existence? Perhaps it just needs to compel you personally?

Charles Darwin

(on Pax6, which induces eye formation...)
But with evolution, we must assume that this sophisticated master-control gene predates advanced organs. It had to have been present in the primitive common ancestor of all these species. Amazing.

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich Why not? It helps start the growth of an eye; what happens afterwards depends on other genes. Thus, mouse Pax6 transplanted into a fruit-fly embryo will induce the growth of fly eyes but not mouse eyes. And a common ancestor with eyes is not as implausible as it might seem -- especially if its eyes had been simple eyespots. So Pax6 is another case of deep homology in the animal kingdom.

Why not? Well, of course, anything is possible once one has swallowed evolution. But my point was, in reponse to an earlier post that used Pax6 as some sort of evidence for evolution, that this master-control gene is used to initiate the development of advanced organs. Yet because of it wide homology, evolutionists must say it predates those organs. If you're going to claim it as evidence for evolution, then you need to reckon with the problems it brings with it.

You say maybe some simple "eyespots" were there. Yeah, like I said, anything is possible once the door has been open to unfounded speculation.

Doubting Didymus

Theres so much of this, that I feel it's neccessary to keep up just so that it doesn't turn into an overwhelming glut.

What if, just what if, common descent is a fact? Why, then it would be a founded speculation, wouldn't it now?

Charles Darwin

I am not claiming creationism is a scientific fact (or theory for that matter).

It is true that an empty safe tells you a theft occurred, even if you don't know the how's, or when's about the theft. Likewise, though the species certainly don't appear to have evolved, this doesn't give us knowledge of the how's or when's of their origin.

Charles Darwin

My point was merely that claims of "uselessness" are notoriously subjeft to revision, as with:


"When structures undergo a reduction in size together with a loss of their typical function, that is, when they become vestigial, they are commonly considered to be degenerate and functionless. Simpson has pointed out that this need not be true at all: the loss of the original function may be accompnied by specialization for a new function. Thus the wing of penguins has become reduced to a point that will not permit flight, but at the same time it has become a highly efficient paddle for swimming. The wings of rheas, ostriches, and other running birds are also much reduced, and have been described as 'at the most still used for display of the decorative wing feathers.' But Simpson has observed that the the rheas, when running, spread the wings and use them as balancers, especially when turning rapidly. It seems quite probable that this is true of the running birds generally." Dodson & Dodson, *Evolution: Process and Product*, 1976.

Charles Darwin

CD said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see, you're going to scientifically put God to the test. Please let me know your findings, I'm sure they'll be totally objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only way I know is to show that evolution is compelling.