Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Audie]

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.

Editorial interpretation, ie, storytelling on your part .

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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...

First off, why do you think that humans and chimps are different from each other? Is it due to differences in the DNA sequences that make up their genomes? Yes/No?

Second, if evolution is true then all species, including transitional species, should be fully formed.

Third, you haven't shown that any species has suddenly appeared.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yet their statement is evolutiondidit storytelling is insufficient.

In what way?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

What "evolutiondidit storytelling" are they objecting to? Be specific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

So then you know that evolution is a fact.

That's good to hear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Really? There are scientists that oppose the theory of evolution? In what well respected professional journal can one find their work?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

It seems to me that he's trying to explain your misconception about evolution to you and how it is inaccurate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Your misconceptions about evolution are not problems with evolution and don't denote any kind of storytelling on the part of anyone else. They are simply your misconceptions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

YES, which is why I ASKED.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

So rather than apologize, your answer is to persist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

YES, which is why I ASKED.

What are you talking about? You clearly dismissed earlier evidence presented to you on the basis that they showed "fully formed" not "half" parts.

 

[Audie]

So rather than apologize, your answer is to persist.

You know perfectly well there was no "insult". You are just claiming
that to get out of the fact that you cant do it, while simuiltaneously
trying to boost yourself by pushing me down. It is a shabby trick
that fools nobody.

The topic was your claimed ability to take a quick glance as fossil
specimens and make such signficant judgments about them that you
could lodge meaningful criticism of paleontology and evolution.

i put up photos of two skulls, and challenged you to say which was
mammal, which was reptile. You did not do so,
"wont" and "cant" being the same in this case.

It actually is not that easy to do in many cases. Anyone can tell
a crocodile from a monkey skull, but do you know the general rule,
the diagnostic details? I deeply doubt it, and it is not insult to
say so. You wont find one in a thousand who does.

Oh and as for insults-did you mean to insult our intelligence with tthat
fatuous claim of a scandal?

 

[Audie]

Really? There are scientists that oppose the theory of evolution? In what well respected professional journal can one find their work?

All anyone has to do to successfully "oppose" is to come up with contrary facts.

Nobody has done so.

This claim about scientists who oppose is just another drive-by, like the one about the "scandal:.

 

[Audie]

What are you talking about? You clearly dismissed earlier evidence presented to you on the basis that they showed "fully formed" not "half" parts.

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

I think the way this works is that as there are no "half formed parts"
that shows that evolution has not taken place.

While I would not call them "half formed" or otherwise incomplete,
there are developmental stages between some earlier form which
is not as highly developed, and what we find today. Amphibian
ears work, but not so well as that of a dog. Fish-lungs exist, but
have nowhere the efficiency of bird lungs. Etc.

Either of those might be considered as about half way from no ear or no
lung, to a "fully developed" one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are you talking about? You clearly dismissed earlier evidence presented to you on the basis that they showed "fully formed" not "half" parts.

The "evidence" for evolution only producing fully formed species is the same fossil record which supports creation of same.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The "evidence" for evolution only producing fully formed species is the same fossil record which supports creation of same.

Again, what are you talking about?

Do you or do you not understand now that evolution doesn't produce "half-formed" parts, contrary to your earlier assertion?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The "evidence" for evolution only producing fully formed species is the same fossil record which supports creation of same.

How do transitional fossils support creationism?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, what are you talking about?

Do you or do you not understand now that evolution doesn't produce "half-formed" parts, contrary to your earlier assertion?

There is no known process as to why evolution should produce only fully formed parts, it is just-so storytelling. The fact that only whole species exist in the fossil record can mean either evolution forms full species or God had done so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How do transitional fossils support creationism?

I did NOT write "transitional fossils" I wrote FULLY FORMED FOSSILS created by just-so evolutiondidit storytelling.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no known process as to why evolution should produce only fully formed parts, it is just-so storytelling.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. All of the parts are ALREADY functioning - all evolution does is refine and specialize those functions. It doesn't generate an entirely new appendage out of nothing.

A good example is the evolution of an eye. The process doesn't go "no eye > half-eye > full eye". It starts with a function - in this case, the detection of light - and slowly produces improved variations of it. Without going into specifics, the process is more like: patch of light sensitive cells > cupped patch of light sensitive cells allowing for detection of the direction of light > deeper cupping further increasing directional detection > increasing cupping leading to a pinhole forming allowing for even greater light detection > cup fills with a transparent humor that protects the rear of the chamber > lens forms over pinhole for enhanced detection and protection > separate iris and cornea develop allowing for control over the amount and range of light entering the chamber.

Note how each step the process described above represents a perfectly functioning appendage, with each step being a slight improvement on the former. At no point is any organism in the process left with a "half formed" appendage that confers no use or advantage.

The fact that only whole species exist in the fossil record can mean either evolution forms full species or God had done so.

Once again, this makes no sense. What is a "half species"? The concept doesn't exist in evolution.

For example, look at your own family tree. In particular, picture your father and your paternal grandfather. Now, in evolutionary terms, it could be said that your father represents a "transition" between your grandfather and you. So, tell me, because you are a fully-formed human, does this mean that your father, who represents a transitional state, is somehow "half you"? Does he have exactly half your features? Half limbs? Or are they a fully-formed human who produced a slight variation of what they were while being a slight variation of what you grandfather is?

When you can answer that question, you'll realize how your question makes no sense.