-
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!
Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
Noaidi
slow walker
Newhope,
Ebon Musings: What Good is Half a Wing?
There is no such thing as half a wing or half an eye. Here's a quote from the above source:
"...using evolution's method, a "half-built" eye is good for vision. As seen in the above example, the key is to think of a "half-built" eye not as a modern eye with half its parts missing, but as a more primitive but still functional eye whose capability for vision is simply not as well refined. Contrary to what creationists claim, this would present a selective advantage. Any vision at all is better than no vision, and even slightly better vision makes an organism more likely to succeed reproductively."
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
Hey immortal flame..I guess all your woffly post means you like my human/banana common ancestor!
Oh so you reckon you've found some common ancestors do you? I note no evidence to illustrate flavour of the month. What you have is 'common thinking', with equally credentialed researchers flapping around thinking different. So show us what you think the modern bird ancestor looks like, lovey. I wonder what you'll post and if it starts with...arch..!!!
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Regardless, of what you put up I have been down most roads before. They all end up in a mess somewhere. The funniest one is the hippo whale common ancestor. There are a couple of contestants. You've found tiktaalik to have predating tetrapod footprints around, and you have many theories as to why you haven't found a nice gradual change (PEq) and lots of theories and presumptions about the fossil evidence. None of this is scientific evidence, I'm afraid.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Your researchers look at the same evidence and come up with different theories. Decending researchers obviously are not always satisfied with current 'common thing' and they are evos. So long as the theory supports a TOE perspective, it is OK with you. Isn't it? Go with the flow and flavour of the month in la la land.
New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories | e! Science News
Well, It's not OK with me.
Human Banana common ancestor. We share 50% genes.
Wofffle from IF...But how much does it take to distinguish one "kind" from another "kind". The differences between me and my brothers and very distinct, does this make us different "kinds"? What about the differences between different breeds of wolves? Are they "distinct" enough to be deemed different "kinds"? By what method do we distinguish between "kinds", and by by what measure do we determine certain "kinds" to be distinct?
Been there...done that. All these are one kind the dog kind by whatever name you wish to call that 'kind'. You picked an easy one. I'm not going over it again with you, anyway. Definitions of kinds have been put up sufficiently for forum discussions. You do not have to like them. This is just one of them "99% SNP's" similarity comparisons is the same kind. Another is to use the Family of Sub family rank, whichever the lower, others use genus equivalents. Like I said been there ..done that..get over it!
How about showing us what you think was the common ancestor of modern birds to a flighless species? While your at it you can settle the half wing debate for your researchers whom are still arguing amongst themselves as to what good a half wing would be to have fixed in a population. You tell 'em what's what, about the true bird and whatever common ancestor and half wings.... and let us know!
It must be super interesting being you, with such a convoluted outlook on reality. Blatantly ignoring even the most basic understanding on evolution. What's even more interesting, is based on your posts, you seem to be offended that people are not as blind as you are, what with your poorly hidden insults and witless quips.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on your fellow creationists that do not deny evolution. Surely you are aware they exist.
Noaidi
slow walker
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
LoL... "what good is half a wing"... It's cute that argument still gets around.
Someone had best tell all those living birds with "half wings" that they shouldn't exist or use their "useless" wings for things like:
sexual display
thermoregulation
shading their offspring
and on and on.
Such evolutionarily useless things "half wings" it's only "common sense" that wings are only good for flying.
I do you one better......
What of the wingless bird the (Kiwi)? What would be "Gods" purpose for creating this Little gem?
What about flightless birds such as the Ostrich or the Emu? If these birds didn't need wings then why did "God create" them with wings?
The creation argument is illogical and can hardly answer the questions above other than.....(that's just the "kind" of animal he wanted to create)......
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
Perhaps she only evolved half an eye...!
Or only half a brain? :drool:
waitasec
Veteran Member
I do you one better......
What of the wingless bird the (Kiwi)? What would be "Gods" purpose for creating this Little gem?
What about flightless birds such as the Ostrich or the Emu? If these birds didn't need wings then why did "God create" them with wings?
The creation argument is illogical and can hardly answer the questions above other than.....(that's just the "kind" of animal he wanted to create)......
opcorn:this will be interesting...
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Different styles of of buffalo wings. Duh.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What's waffly about it? I asked questions.
You could have just asked, newhope. Here's a list of human ancestors:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you require anything more specific?
And, as explained before, changes of opinion in the scientific community depending on the arising of new information is news to nobody.
Actually, all of it is since it's the only thing that can account for the current state of the fossil record.
Again, what other explanations can you propose for the diversification of species as we ascend the fossil record? Why do we not find any human fossils in the same strata as those proposed by evolutionary theory to be our evolutionary ancestors?
And, again, this is surprising to nobody except you.
So, you don't know how science is done? Of course there are many conflicting suppositions of science - in the absence of evidence we need to construct a workable frame with the evidence we already have. At no point is any such framework supposed to be set in stone, nor does the existence of such frameworks suddenly disqualify everything we already knew. You seem to be of the opinion that any degree of uncertainty means that the whole of a theory is void or inane. If you had a rational bone in your body, you would see why this is ridiculous.
And, again, this does not even remotely contradict evolutionary theory.
Because you'll take any opportunity to disagree with evolution, even if you don't understand the concepts involved.
And...?
Except we've already observed speciation above that level:
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
So, if that is how you are choosing to define "kind", then you are demonstrably wrong. Animals can and do evolve into different "kinds".
Sure, as soon as you tell us exactly what state the Universe was in before the planck time, solve world hunger and find the answer to the meaning of existence.
Seriously, Newhope, do you not understand that scientists not being absolutely certain about one extremely small and specific part of a specific groups lineage does absolutely nothing to harm the overall theory?
waitasec
Veteran Member
evolution has absolutely nothing to do with faith because it is founded on the:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
no faith required there...
McBell
Unbound
Happens damn near every time a creationist enters a thread about evolution...
Really?
You really want to go there?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Bananas have DNA. Humans have DNA. About half the genes in a banana do the same thing for humans as they do bananas.
WOW!
4 billion years of evolution. Yes, the banana and human have a common ancestor.
What's your point?
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
Well there are those Creation evolutionists...I would hope they had at least a basic understanding of it. Definately more than your average Bible thumper.
Dunno, that term always seemed an oxymoron to me, but I've met a few. Hell, there's one working in my workcenter atm. To be a fly on the wall....
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Yeah...sure...why not?
Every time some sorry minded non-believer comes around.....
all I get is nay-saying...all for stubbornness and the last word.
Still want to say nay?
God made you do it.
That way I get to post yet another cause to believe.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Evolution has everything to do with faith.....God did it.
No proof needed.
There's your trump card.
waitasec
Veteran Member
have you considered why god would create a wasp that injects it's venom making it's prey unable to move while being eaten alive? which isn't unique to the animal kingdom, btw.
or that 98% of all "creation" is now extinct?
Mellonhead
Member
Wat.
Is that trolling? I honestly can't tell.
I created the universe, so there. No proof needed.