• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    You're just not getting it. Do you understand how long a span of time a hundred million years is? It's a million and a half human generations. A million and a half fruit-fly generations is still 275,000 years. That's how long we should expect it to take—absolute rock-bottom minimum—for major...
  2. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    England, I am not going to repeat too many more times that major morphological change as the result of macroevolution takes millions to hundreds of millions of years. We know this because we can look at the fossil record, and compare e.g. the earliest amniotes appearing in the Carboniferous with...
  3. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    That's a completely wrong definition of "information." Information is anything that is in the genome now that was not there before. There you go, moving the goalposts. It's not a simple matter to point to a single mutation that confers a benefit, but it can be done. But most genes work in...
  4. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I don't know why you're incorrect, but you are. Your claim is that the fruit fly experiments (which have been going on for decades) have never created any novel genes. This is simply not true. If you think you're correct about fruit flies not evolving into other organisms, such as horses or...
  5. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    No. Completely different. Science proceeds by reference to empirical evidence. Right now, even as we type (well, maybe not this second, being it's a holiday, but you never know) scientists are trying to test hypotheses about how life arose initially. Those hypotheses are based on empirical...
  6. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Undoubtedly. But lurkers might not.
  7. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Incorrect. It absolutely produced mutated genes which did not exist before. Hence, genetic information increased; not in an individual fly, of course, but in the total gene pool of the population. Second, as I said, macroevolution does not happen on a human-observable timescale, even when...
  8. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    No, you're still not getting it. You're still failing to distinguish between the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. All evolution is is change over time. There is absolutely no question that living organisms have changed over time. Do you see any dinosaurs walking around these...
  9. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Because macroevolution does not happen on a timescale humans can observe. It took three million years to get from Australopithecus, which was an anatomically modern human being from the neck down, to modern humans. How much evolution would you expect in fruit flies in less than a hundred years...
  10. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    You're failing to make a distinction between the fact of evolution, and the theory that explains how that fact happens. There is simply no rational doubt that evolution happens. The fossil record is conclusive proof that evolution happens. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is...
  11. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Of course they can. Even without a workable definition of "genetic information," it is obvious they can. Let's go through it one more time. If you think genetic information cannot increase, you must deny two obviously true statements. You must deny that genes can be duplicated, and you must...
  12. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Ah, created "kinds." Where creationist assertions about biodiversity go to die. So let's see. Are created "kinds" the same thing as species? Doubtful. Sure, creationists like to talk about things like dogs and wolves being in the same "kind," or housecats and leopards being in the same...
  13. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    So far, we don't have a usable definition of information, and we don't have a usable definition of "kinds." Which makes creationists' claims rather worthless. Fortunately, evolutionary biologists' claims are plainly stated and easily compared to observation. When 4Pillars gets back from his...
  14. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    No it's not. A royal flush is extremely improbable, and it is easily specified. That doesn't make it the product of design. What you are talking about is the "single bridge hand" fallacy, coupled with the erroneous belief that evolution is a teleological process. Given imperfect reproduction...
  15. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Such as? Like what? Give me an example. That's already been done. First, there is not one "flagellum"; there are dozens, all with different numbers of proteins. Therefore, on that basis alone, flagella are not irreducibly complex. Further, removing parts from various flagella will not make...
  16. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    In other words, a "kind" is a species. Biblical literalists will be dismayed to discover this, once they realize Noah had to fit tens of millions of organisms onto the ark. But of course, a "kind" is not really a species, since we know new species have come into existence within the last...
  17. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Macroevolution is just as observable as micoevolution is. You just can't observe it in the lab. The strongest evidence for macroevolution has nothing to do with microevolution. You don't look to the lab for evidence of macroevolution; you look to the rocks. There's nothing mythical about it...
  18. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Hey, it was your claim that genetic information "cannot increase." Now you've admitted that it can. You claim that there's no evidence it ever has. I point to the fossil record, which is pretty conclusive evidence that it can. You, on the other hand, have no explanation for the fossil record at...
  19. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    In other words, you cannot address the fact that evolutionary theory makes falsifiable predictions, and Intelligent Design "theory" cannot. I've given you a list of falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory has made; predictions that have been confirmed. In response, you make the entirely...
  20. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    In order to deny that genetic "information" (whatever that is) can increase, creationists have to deny two things that can be trivially demonstrated in any genetics lab. 1) they have to deny that genes can be duplicated. (To my knowledge, creationists do not deny this). 2) they have to deny that...
Top