Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Since other lizard populations have cecal valves, it is quite logical the genetics were already there for this valve. A genetic switch may have been turned on when the need arose for this valve in the new environment. That would be quite an intelligent design.

And once again we see 6days try and give creationists credit for work done by evolutionary biologists. How slimy.

 

[gcthomas]

They are amazing. Intelligently created.
Not only can't evolution explain hummingbirds,

Do you never get bored with making up untrue stuff for rhetorical effect?

For a starter, try here: Molecular Phylogenetics and the Diversification of Hummingbirds in Current Biology. Plenty of stuff there about the whys and wherefores of hummingbird evolution.

but it can't even explain a hummingbird gene.

This doesn't even make grammatical sense.

 

[Cross Reference]

Haha.... So true. They mock if someone says 'Why aren't there transitional alive that are between man and monkey'.....or suggest that they believe a cat can evolve into a dog.... And yet that is what they espouse.
They claim if they are given enough chances and enough time, stardust can turn into a Hollywood star.

LOL! You nailed it!

 

[Jose Fly]

Only at ToL would creationists see the crocoduck and say "Yeah evolutionists, where is that creature??!!" :rotfl:

 

[6days]

Do you never get bored with making up untrue stuff for rhetorical effect?

For a starter, try here: Molecular Phylogenetics and the Diversification of Hummingbirds in Current Biology. Plenty of stuff there about the whys and wherefores of hummingbird evolution

Did you even read your article? Although they got the time frame wrong, your article supports the Biblical creation model of "rapid diversification".

You migh next want to post a link explaining how T-rex evolved into a chicken. (Dino to bird).

 

[Jose Fly]

your article supports the Biblical creation model of "rapid diversification".

And where is rapid diversification in the Bible? Chapter and verse please.

 

[gcthomas]

You migh next want to post a link explaining how T-rex evolved into a chicken. (Dino to bird).

Only creationists talk about T-Rex evolving into chickens. Chickens didn't evolve from T-Rex - T-Rex became extinct and left no descendants. Please stop criticising things that no one has proposed: it makes you look silly, especially since you are the one who reckons to know about logical fallacies.

 

[Tyrathca]

Why shouldn't they believe that? It is what you all espouse.

:chuckle: Now THAT is funny! No wonder you don't believe in evolution, if I thought evolution said that I'd be sceptical too. Fortunately evolution doesn't say that. It's so ridiculous and comical that the crocoduck has become a long-standing joke ever since Kirk Cameron invented it.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Cross Reference]

LOL! 6days nailed it. It isn't arguable.

 

[Rosenritter]

Only at ToL would creationists see the crocoduck and say "Yeah evolutionists, where is that creature??!!" :rotfl:

I'm still looking at your avatar and wondering "where is THAT creature?"

 

[Rosenritter]

Where did you get that idea from?

There's this special skill I have, called reading. Check the posted article yourself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

"Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

Of course I probably shouldn't trust it since it came from an evolutionist site.

 

[Rosenritter]

That is what I meant. But objects as large as hammers have enough internal thermal interactions that spontaneous events are usually limited to individual particles within the hammer.

I am describing quantum events, of course, and although large objects can experience spontaneous events, it is usually confined to subatomic particles. So, for example, the radioactive decay of an atom is entirely and demonstrably spontaneous, with no specific triggering cause. Photons of light form continuously in empty space for no reason beyond random chance, and these photons can be measured from the pressure they exert on surfaces.

The big bang theory, as you must know, proposes a very specific expanding subatomic particle-sized seed for the universe. Since time as we know it started at that event, there was no time preceding the event to allow for a cause, since caused occur before effects, and there was no time before. A spontaneous, quantum event.

How do you know that it started at that event? You sounded sort of certain of that there.

Problems with this theory as I hear it described is that it is the effect of "nothing" exploding into everything. And that everything isn't a chaotic mess, but formulated structure. The matter in the universe isn't spread out randomly, it is grouped. Some systems spiral one direction, others in completely the opposite. We see the universe exhibiting decay and entropy, which indicates that it is winding down, not that it continually perpetuates itself. I see a world that was built.

When I see order and design, I see a builder behind that. I'll call that builder "God" for sake of argument. You haven't considered the possibility of an intelligent builder, but only see the possibility that "nothing" did this. I believe in God, you believe in nothing. If there seem to be spontaneous events, I understand this as part of the fabric of creation, I think of God. When you see complicated systems in orbit, precariously balanced between spinning out of control or plunging into the star, I'm guessing you think of nothing.

But this is interesting so far and we aren't raging at each other, so could you go on please? Let's fast forward until we have a hunk of rock that we call Earth. It seems that we started on a chronological route so I'd like to hear where evolution starts to enter into this. I may hassle you a little along the way but I'll try not to derail the story.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Only creationists talk about T-Rex evolving into chickens. Chickens didn't evolve from T-Rex - T-Rex became extinct and left no descendants. Please stop criticising things that no one has proposed: it makes you look silly, especially since you are the one who reckons to know about logical fallacies.

Dear gcthomas,

Evolutionists say everything came from an amoeba or so. 6days isn't making anything up. Are you an atheist and an evolutionist? Our God created each creature and plant differently, but He used some similar chemical, molecular and elements for each different creation. Just because they are similar doesn't mean God didn't create them that way. A 1/4 tsp. of vanilla ice cream turns into a Banana Split, if that's what God wanted. But they still have the same thing in common. God used vanilla, cream, ice, etc. to make the 1/4 tsp. of vanilla ice cream.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

They are amazing. Intelligently created.
Not only can't evolution explain hummingbirds, but it can't even explain a hummingbird gene.

Dear 6days,

You know, we have tons of hummingbirds here in Phoenix, AZ. I have a hummingbird feeder outside hanging in a tree. I have to clean and refill it about every 5 days. Since the heat is so dry here, the water/food evaporates fast. I make my hummingbird food out of 1 cup of water and 1/2 cup of sugar. I have to heat the water to boiling to make sure no undesirables/bacteria are in the water. They are marvelous to watch. So many colors too. And they hover like helicopters or drones. Just wanted to let you know. The technology/idea to make helicopters were taken from the hummingbirds. You can look that up if you want to.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Then you'd be wrong.



And we observe populations evolving....every single day. It's so trivially easy to observe, undergrad students do it in lab experiments all across the world.



Yes, but each new generation contains a host of new variability for selection to act on. For example, each human contains over 100 new mutations.



Again, that's the role of mutations.

I'm getting the strong impression that you really don't know the basics of evolutionary biology. Have you ever taken an introductory college course in it, or read a scholarly book on it?



Turning a dog into a cat would be magic, not evolution.



Just like "one kind of creature" (which I asked you to define and you ignored), "something else" is too vague to be of any use. It kinda looks to me like you're just in pure denial mode without even understanding what it is you're denying.

Dear Jose,

How about turning a cat into a dog?? Now that's different, eh??

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

There's this special skill I have, called reading. Check the posted article yourself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
[FONT=&]
"Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."
[/FONT][FONT=&]
Of course I probably shouldn't trust it since it came from an evolutionist site. [/FONT]

Please read the context for that snippet in actual paper. It is clear that the DNA tests were not of the nuclear DNA you believe it to be, but was mDNA, which is used for lineage determination and cannot, even in principle, determine whether there has been any functional mutations in the nuclear DNA.

Quit over-reading into journalist summaries, read the originals.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nope. Please re-read what I wrote, and try again.



This is not a quantitative hypothesis, and as such can be moulded to fit any and all observations, rendering it unusable for making predictions. Hence, it is unscientific.

Evolution is of an unscientific origin. Why?, because it can't be tested. . . . only conjectured.

 

[gcthomas]

Evolution is of an unscientific origin. Why?, because it can't be tested. . . . only conjectured.

Of course evolution can be tested, and it is tested daily. Right from the beginning, Darwin predicted the existence of ancestral human remains in Africa long before they were discovered. Evolution predicts that phylogenetic trees will have the same structure no matter what characteristics are measured, a prediction shown to be true again and again. A classic that has been given in this forum several times is that you'll never find rabbit fossils in, say, Jurassic strata. Find one and evolution is in trouble.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course evolution can be tested, and it is tested daily. Right from the beginning, Darwin predicted the existence of ancestral human remains in Africa long before they were discovered. Evolution predicts that phylogenetic trees will have the same structure no matter what characteristics are measured, a prediction shown to be true again and again. A classic that has been given in this forum several times is that you'll never find rabbit fossils in, say, Jurassic strata. Find one and evolution is in trouble.

You don't have the necessary physical information from which to perform the test. AND you can't have it because it belongs to God.

 

[gcthomas]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.