Arguments Against Organic/Biological Evolution

[Iti oj]

Why yes I will, and here it is, from none other than Michael Behe himself:

[/i]

And there you have it, "both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans......."



One thing people hope for in court room battles are a series of declarations that define the reality of an argument. Evidence is evidence, it is not necessarily in the service of one or another's side of a case. Do you perceive a commonality denotes a linkage where heritage goes? I'm willing to discuss the point you've raised. You'll have to give more to substantiate your idea what you've noted evidences evolution. That isn't necessarily so. I'm sure, if you are accepting of the reality of matters of this kind that similarity isn't necessarily a marker of a common ancestry. How about you post what reasoning you draw on to conclude what you've noted is a marker of evolution. It's take more than simply saying to be convincing.

ok please explain all the other homos in then fossil record and explain vasigal organs, and the shape of our back bone, and the genetic similarities in all life?

 

[Meow Mix]

In asking about disease defense you got the essence of what I was writing. For your own need, directly quote what you have a problem processing. I'll deal with direct quotes and comments.

No, I didn't get the essence of what you're writing because I've only seen you make references to having an argument regarding disease defences; but I haven't seen the supposed argument in your posts. I was asking you to direct me to it if possible.

I'm not having trouble processing anything -- though you do have a difficult posting style simply in that the colors and font sizes are counterproductive; and the lack of paragraph breaks is particularly troublesome.

 

[Meow Mix]

astro, I may have found the post you were referring to:

All the time the morphing was purportedly occurring would have to be developing capacities environment could not sponsor. Nature could not sponsor or prepare living creatures for anti-life. Diseases would have to be precisely balanced to maintain evolution's flow. What would you say if I asked, which came first the immune system or the disease? What would be your answer to that? Evolution does not fit the construct required for living creatures to endure the ravages of disease agents. Evolution would have to claim parallel development of enemy micro-organisms and the body's ability to ward them and their effects off.

Ok, if this is your argument concerning disease, then I can confidently say that you must not be very familiar with evolutionary literature or mechanisms. The co-development of immune response to disease and parasites is a very actively researched (and very well understood) aspect of evolutionary biology.

In fact, the "evolutionary arms race" between diseases/parasites to infect hosts and hosts' responses to the infecting agents plays a large role in evolutionary history and particularly in the evolution of sex (which is almost entirely for shuffling genes to make it much harder for disease agents and parasites to specialize in a particular population). It's even been given a name: the Red Queen Effect, named after a character in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" that commands Alice to run as fast as she can only so that she can stay in the same place that she started (as is what commonly happens in evolutionary arms races).

You make a lot of comments about "the numbers" not supporting evolution, but I haven't seen a lot of substance to those accusations. Frankly, after observing that you're unfamiliar with one of the largest studied aspects of evolution (sex and disease), I'm wondering why you're attempting to challenge evolution at all when it seems you have yet to demonstrate you have more than a junior grade understanding of the subject.

That isn't meant to be insulting, it's just an observation -- it would be as if a person wanted to challenge Einsteinian relativity but didn't express an understanding of energy-stress tensors or something. It becomes obvious that a person is challenging something they aren't really familiar with.