Originally posted by Red Nemesissure the code will be passed down, but if you do any study in genetics, you will notice that many flaws are not repeated for a long time, for instance, my great grandmother had an eleventh toe. It has not been evidenced in our family, even though she survived to maturity and propagated. It has to happen enough among enough of the fish or shrimp to become commonly hereditary, and once again, how do the nerves get to the brain? why is the light sensitive patch on the head? did it just start with a light sensitive tumor that grew tendrils towards the brain? no matter what you say, this is beginning to sound more and more like science fiction. [quote] A light sensitive patch was the starting premise, but lets back up some more. A tiny primordial shrimp is in competition with other shrimp. Its species is blind. The first step for our hypothetical protagonist is to develop pigment molecules. We know from our inquiries into physics that light is composed of photons. When it strikes a molecule of a colored substance it may be affected- the photon would be stopped in its tracks- releasing energy. In plants, this energy is used to fuel photosynthesis. It is not a stretch to think that our shrimp's nervous system could be able to pick up this energy released when it is struck by light and from there it is a variable that can be operated upon by natural selection. The tiny ancient lifeforms (and today's- modern microbes can be killed with UV, which is just more EM radiation) were shaped and influenced by the extreme environment they lived in, and had short lifespans. Over millions of years, the eye had time to evolve. I find it a stretch that something that was completely blind could pick up the light and as a result, the eye was born. First of all, this would be incredibly complex for just the first shrimp to have, but for it to be reproduced until the mutation became widespread? It becomes altogether too incredible.Becoming hereditary is no obstacle- these transmissions happen in the genetic code- if it grows because of a mutation, it will be passed to its offspring.
that's because no matter what is thrown at evolutionists, they can write a piece of elaborate science fiction, pin it up on the wall, and call it a theory. They then tell their students that while a law may be more proven and more factual, a theory is much more grand
The great thing about evolution is that it isn't made of all or nothing chances. There hasn't been an example of irreducible complexity found yet, and I suspect there never will.
Everything scholars have investigated would be beneficial in less advanced stages. Evolution breaks everything up into smaller pieces of improbability. An eye does not have to spring fully grown from the head of Zeus- it can be created through many, less improbable occurrences. There will never be a Boeing 747 spontaneously blown together by a hurricane, but a few pieces of metal could be leaning on each other, with other pieces being added all of the time. The removal of adverisity through incremental changes- THAT is the beauty of the theory of evolution.>.> The Beoing would no more be made by pieces of metal leaning against each other than if they were thrown together in a hurricane. Lets not go to the barren desert of trying to prove creationist's analogies concerning evolution wrong. They are a little too biased for me, and anyone found quoting them as evidence for intelligent design is marked as an idiot by his scientific peers.
Not so. Every animal is undergoing this change whenever it reproduces. Evolution hasn't stopped just because humans "arrived," we can see mutations (for the better- actual, beneficial mutations) in bacteria, we can see the evidence of evolution in the diversity of life, and we can see the history of evolution- the fossil record, while inherently spotty, shows the change of animals and life throughout time.I'm not going to argue with you here. I honestly believe that species evolve between themselves, but you are never going to create an entirely new species from this, say a feline from a canine. While you can see dogs changing colors after a long time to fit in their surroundings, you never see a dog evolving a mini-periscope on its back to see over jungle shrubs.
Yes, it would be nice to meet an evolutionist that would back up his argument, instead of arguing a lot of the fiction that scientist write to explain away certain arguments that supporters of intelligent design propose.
If you want case studies, I will post some. I can point to several examples of microbial resistance (to antibiotics) or specialization, and in my next post I can give you some history and specifics if you are still wanting information.
I like a little proof, I will post proof that clashes with evolution tomorrow as well.I didn't realize that you wanted case studies- I was arguing mechanics and application. I don't have the heart to re-write this, so I'll post them sometime tomorrow.
Genetics has shown that the eye evolved independently 40 different times. 40. The fact that it is generally on the anatomical "head" could have many reasons. With the eyes closer to the brain, there is less lag in reflexes, the brain and eyes are both vulnerable and may as well be placed close together (for efficient protection) and they might just be more effective when placed in a foreward position- eyes only on the back of our head wouldn't do us much good- they would confer no survival value or advantage, so wouldn't help their bearers propagate and represent themselves in the gene pool.Really it was just asking for proof, any proof of evolution. They usually stutter a bit.I don't know how to respond to this. You may have been placing unreasonable demands of evidence (like watching an animal change from a monkey to a lizard, which I've heard so often that I don't think there's any hope for humanity) or asking for something that isn't required to prove evolution anyway (like yet another transitional fossil) Without knowing the circumstances, I can't comment further.
thats all i ask for.
Evolution is based upon solid scientific proof.
The field of genetics has largely vindicated Darwin, refining his theory to fit the information that surfaces. Creationism is only valid when viewed through a religious viewpoint. As long as the US remains a democracy, rather than a theocracy, Creationism has no place in schools.I am preaching the exact opposite of what you say I'm saying. Creationism doesn't belong in schools, but neither does evolution, because honestly, I can find more to disprove evolution than you can to prove it. Evolution is a theory based on theories and some genetic rules that are seen in nature.
I understand this. You brought it up in both of the posts I was refuting, so I responded in both.
I've already said I won't respond to this. I will add that you won't have much luck if you keep calling the audience dumb (some advice from my debate days- which was actually 3 days of debate before I quit. That's a different discussion altogether- I'd better stay on topic.) [/B]