Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Thermos aquaticus]

These are all fully formed parts. None of these are half parts, and they may be analogous to many other species' parts that are now passe to call useless or vestigial.

Then why would evolution require half formed species? Can you explain?

 

[Audie]

Then why would evolution require half formed species? Can you explain?

I am very sincerely curious about that too i see it so often-"half formed". What are t hey visualizing?

A wing with a humurus but no ulna and radius? Complete but half the length needed to work?

I cant think of anything that would make any sense at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am aware that there are mudskippers and many other in-between and crossover species, sure. But the concept of enough mutations accruing to pop a new species into place is merely storytelling power, as these scientists understand: Home | The Third Way of Evolution

I'd like your opinion of that site. I need to learn more.

That's the closest thing to a "half-formed" creature that you're going to get. The mudskipper's fin that it uses to swim also doubles as a sort of leg, so that it can also move itself about on land.

The evolution of fins to limbs in the land invasion race

The website seems somewhat interesting, at first glance, with actual links to peer-reviewed papers.
I feel like I need to draw your attention to something they mention under their "Rationale" section:

"It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else."

 

[Audie]

That's the closest thing to a "half-formed" creature that you're going to get.
"

That is so, no doubt, but-it is easy to
translate it into a win for the creationist pov.

They are the one who point out the lack of "half- formed".

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is so, no doubt, but-it is easy to
translate it into a win for the creationist pov.

They are the one who point out the lack of "half- formed".

It is sort of a mix between a fin and some kind of leg, in the case of the mudskipper. Or a sort of "half formed" leg, if we must use that language. Personally, I think the term is misleading and conjures up ideas of evolution that don't occur in reality.

 

[Audie]

It is sort of a mix between a fin and some kind of leg, in the case of the mudskipper. Or a sort of "half formed" leg, if we must use that language. Personally, I think the term is misleading and conjures up ideas of evolution that don't occur in reality.

Well, maybe that is what they have in mind.
What idea about evolution it conjures up in their minds
is what I'd like to know.

I've never seen any creationist try to say.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am aware that there are mudskippers and many other in-between and crossover species, sure. But the concept of enough mutations accruing to pop a new species into place is merely storytelling power, as these scientists understand: Home | The Third Way of Evolution

I'd like your opinion of that site. I need to learn more.

Even in the "Third Way of Evolution", all of those differences between species still come down to the DNA sequence differences between their genomes. Also, all of the mechanisms they propose are already part of the theory of evolution, and all of them are natural.

 

[Sapiens]

They are discussing some very interesting and sometimes controversial details concerning process but I see nothing proposed on their website that challenges classic Darwinian Evolution at its base.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no such thing as a "half part" in evolution, every transitional step is functional and represents an improvement or an increase in function over the prior step. Evolution is incremental. It doesn't decide "This species needs a fourth leg with a join in it", and thus start producing a stump with the useless knee bone in the hopes of eventually reaching a full leg. That's not how evolution works.

You are storytelling, rather than explaining how small changes over time are NOT incremental changes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No offense was intended, and i am wondering how you were able
to find offense in it. But please do report to the mods, if you feel so,
and if they agree, well,I take full fault in the matter.

You will note, that it is standard fare for Christians to
"demean, insult etc" nor Christians, saying we are unable to understand scripture. We get by w/o outrage.

You were of course, talking about what you see-so you introduced your
abilities / perception into the discussion, in support of your
ideas.

So how did you do? Did you know what those two skulls are?
Coz if not-

Mods, shmods, you are STILL insulting my intelligence. I know the difference between skulls.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In bold is actually creationist storytelling.

If you get your info from creationist sites, that is the sort of pap they serve.

So, you didn't go to the site I posted, which has contribution from ZERO creationists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are storytelling, rather than explaining how small changes over time are NOT incremental changes.

You're ignoring the point. You suggested that evolution says that there are "half-formed" parts, but this is not true and a basic misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory actually says. When you understand evolutionary theory correctly, you realize your argument is nonsensical. I wasn't explaining "how small changes over time are NOT incremental changes", I was explaining how your statements indicated a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and educating you on that subject - something I feel I did well.

So, do you understand that there are no "half-formed" parts in evolution?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then why would evolution require half formed species? Can you explain?

I'm making an argument from silence--the silence of evolutionary biologists, who use the power of storytelling to explain how mutations magically create fully formed species with no transition, how small changes over time create suddenly formed complete fossils...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Even in the "Third Way of Evolution", all of those differences between species still come down to the DNA sequence differences between their genomes. Also, all of the mechanisms they propose are already part of the theory of evolution, and all of them are natural.

Yet their statement is evolutiondidit storytelling is insufficient.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm making an argument from silence--the silence of evolutionary biologists, who use the power of storytelling to explain how mutations magically create fully formed species with no transition, how small changes over time create suddenly formed complete fossils...

What are you talking about? Mutations don't "magically create fully formed species" - the species are already "formed", the mutations DIVERSIFY a population into MULTIPLE species. And where does evolutionary theory state that species arise "with no transition"? Nothing is "suddenly formed".

You're tilting at windmills, friend.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yet their statement is evolutiondidit storytelling is insufficient.

But evolution explains exactly how and why it occurs, and it does it using mechanisms that are directly observed and understood.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's the closest thing to a "half-formed" creature that you're going to get. The mudskipper's fin that it uses to swim also doubles as a sort of leg, so that it can also move itself about on land.

The evolution of fins to limbs in the land invasion race

The website seems somewhat interesting, at first glance, with actual links to peer-reviewed papers.
I feel like I need to draw your attention to something they mention under their "Rationale" section:

"It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else."

That's why I quoted the Third Way, because they are NOT creationists but are scientists who are tired of evolutiondidit storytelling that doesn't line up with modern science.

 

[Audie]

Mods, shmods, you are STILL insulting my intelligence. I know the difference between skulls.

IOW, there was no insult, and complaining to mods would just highlight that.

My point was that how things seem to you, and how they are, are likely
not the same..including the "insult".

I very much doubt that you could id those two skulls that i asked about, as to which is mammal and which is reptile, or what genus they represent. Not many could. Possibly that is why you chose to claim "insult" and thus
you dont have to show you cannot do it.

 

[Audie]

So, you didn't go to the site I posted, which has contribution from ZERO creationists.

Evading the point as usual.
It is creationist storytelling regardless of the exact source.

 

[Audie]

What are you talking about? Mutations don't "magically create fully formed species" - the species are already "formed", the mutations DIVERSIFY a population into MULTIPLE species. And where does evolutionary theory state that species arise "with no transition"? Nothing is "suddenly formed".

You're tilting at windmills, friend.

And re-telling creationist fairytales.