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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
As I was writing an answer, I had to stop and reconsider. Because a time sequence of fossils would not necessarily show development. It would show different forms, but again similarity, such as feathers on a dinosaur fossil and feathers on a bird, but that is not evidence of evolution. Evolution in this case meaning things emerging -- because that's the way it is. Some might say it is, but--not necessarily or scientifically so. That is, imo, of course.
No, not "specified complexity". We do not observe that. Designed objects tend to be simpler. You won't find the plans for a semi truck air horn on a toddler's tricycle. But we do often find ancient non-functioning genes in life. What we see with life is that it is the product of natural evolution along with all of the drawbacks that accompany it. In fact the recurrent laryngeal nerve on the giraffe is pretty much an air horn on a tricycle. A signature of evolution and not design.
I have read part of Darwin's Black Box and do not find he is charlatan so far. The irreducible complexity of the first socalled organism makes me wonder how people think it (life!) more or less came about, voila, like that. As I am researching, chemical elements themselves are not so simple. But naturally larger items are very complex. And...so far nothing to show these advanced complexities came about without having the ability to reproduce. Why do I say that in that manner? Because negative mutations, such as ... Lupus, multiple sclerosis, come about, that's for sure, but that, my friend, is where I stop until positive progress in these discussions come about. Evolve?
No one has ever demonstrated that life has specified complexity. If anything the opposite has been shown to be the case.
Are we talking evolution or abiogenesis?
It implies that natural selection has been at work, culling dysfunctional patterns or programs and allowing useful ones to replicate themselves through reproduction.
It implies that natural selection has been at work, culling dysfunctional patterns or programs and allowing useful ones to replicate themselves through reproduction.
There are always micro changes: reproductive variation, mutation, epigenetic switching, &c, and lots of tiny changes accumulate into big changes.
Huh????
I realize that some philosophers conjecture that somehow mankind figured out languages with words and writing. As if by necessity. I can't figure how they figure, but then, that's what I've learned, i.e., that some figure there was a 'need,' and so humans figured these things out (evolved somehow into language). Meaning that it is, imo, impossible for mankind to have figured out by itself (no matter what imaginings men come up with) reading, writing, and language(s). Impossible. No matter what reasons they give for it. Impossible.
Let me try again. If someone has his "own" dna in most of his body but then accepts a penile transplant with scrotum and can reproduce, would you call that "natural selection"? Do you understand the question now?
You mean it's a made-up step-by-step series of anatomical changes. There is no substantial and verifiable 'evidence' to demonstrate that the series of anatomical changes came about as said by seen or observed micro biological 'in the body' changes. None whatsoever. And that is what I have learned after asking for more than opinion. Again -- you are merely saying something with no (proof, I mean--) evidence.
You don't believe in natural selection? How do you explain selective breeding, peppered moths, tube mosquitoes, ring species?
I don't understand any of this. What are we talking about here?
Magic.