Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 09:07pm PT
|
"Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution."
Now that's an interesting comment coming from someone who claims to be in the know. That's actually "adaptation", not evolving from one creature to another. Most creationists have no problems with adaptation. What I (a creationist) have challenges with are the arguements that one species evolved into another. Just as Darwin said in the Origin of Species, if his theory is true (Evolution...one species slowly evolving to another) the fossil record will have abundant evidence. So far that's just been a bunch of hoaxes.
The salamander is still a salamander...sorry.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 10:15pm PT
|
Flatfish like flounder have both eyes on one side, which allows them to swim with the other flat side very near the sea floor, without getting dirt in their eyes.
Creation science proponents have used these fish as a common example in their arguments, saying there are no fossils that show how eyes evolved to move both onto the same side.
Those fossils have now been found - see recent news.
Illustrating the problem of a "science of gaps," in which most of a theory consists of saying the other theory hasn't filled in all the gaps. Gradually the gaps are filled in.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
"...Irreducible complexity is a serious argument..."
Bzzzzzzzt! Thank you for playing.
Serious argument? Really? Irreducible complexity (IC) assumes that whatever is currently known is all that will ever be known. And we know that's not true, don't we, kids? After all, IC goes way back to what, 1802? Not a new idea, is it?
Here's a mathematical example:
Take an infinitely long string of digits. Say the following is but a snippet of some random section of it:
...2349823656239928347234982357234524958245729458724958745242948...
Can you tell if these digits were strung together as a result of some mathematical function, say, these are the umpteenth decimal places in pi (reducible), or simply the result of some half-bored dude typing at random (not reducible)?
Answer: you can't.
This must be then an example of irreducible complexity!
But wait! Back in the 19th century, IC was popular even before Darwin published his tome. Look at any form of life--isn't it amazing? Isn't it complex? No way that can be reduced to some mathematical function--it's beyond comprehension! God's hand writ large!
Then Mendel's work was rediscovered, and guess what, we learned of the wonders of DNA. Now every single life form ever discovered is reducible right down to the base pairs in its genome. Uh oh, ICers. Game over.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 12:19am PT
|
Eyes are still good, hair not responding at all....
The horse has not only died, but all of his ancestors...
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:20am PT
|
Double D: "That's actually "adaptation", not evolving from one creature to another."
Where do you draw the line between "just an adaptation" and "evolved from one creature to another?" You admit that adaptation can happen. If one adaptation can happen, so can a second a third... and a hundredth and thousandth... With enough adaptations you have new creatures and before you know it you have enough new creatures to fill Noah's Ark hundreds of times over.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:23am PT
|
I never did figure out how Noah prevented the tyrannosaurs from eating everybody else on the ark.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:26am PT
|
"Just as Darwin said in the Origin of Species, if his theory is true (Evolution...one species slowly evolving to another) the fossil record will have abundant evidence."
If you acknowledge the fossil record there is no controversy,whatsoever, there Is abundant evidence. Look at one of the Foraminifera catalogs; speciation, time and time again.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:45am PT
|
The Tyrannosaurs were "evil fallen angels" and were drowned in the flood. Uh-huh.
Wouldn't have wanted this to happen.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 02:03am PT
|
drgonzo, your argument cuts both ways. wait and see - why presume that because the mechanistic scientists can explain a little that they will ultimately explain it all?
Jaybro, the argument - at least my version of it - doesn't deny the change in life forms over time, but the mechanism or directing force behind those changes. Accident or purpose? Did reality begin with rock and evolve to humans, or begin with conscious purpose and descend to creatures, and planets and inert rock?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 02:13am PT
|
Rockermike, interesting point of view, I don't know how to debate that one, either way. Fascinating question. I guess I'm a 'rock firster', but I don't know how it could be proved empirically one way or the other. Well spoken, I appreciate and respect, your viewpoint.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 04:25am PT
|
jesus is ..
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 06:47am PT
|
"Where do you draw the line between "just an adaptation" and "evolved from one creature to another?"
For me it's real simple, a fish is still a fish, a salamander is still a salamander. A salamander with bad eyes is still a salamander.
The Bible declares "after it's kind" and not "from another kind" so that settles it for me. The lack of proof for evolution is merely icing on the cake. It's a personal choice to believe in God's word or not. I do.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 07:34am PT
|
I'm kinda surprised that Hitchens made such a big deal of this. There are like 10,000 zoological obsevations like this that fly in the face of any kind of designer explanation yet are trivially explained by evolution.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 07:50am PT
|
I’m dying to get involved in this debate but I...........
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 09:34am PT
|
DoubleD said:
>>"Where do you draw the line between "just an adaptation" and
>>"evolved from one creature to another?"
>>
>For me it's real simple, a fish is still a fish, a salamander is
>still a salamander. A salamander with bad eyes is still a
>salamander.
So are you saying that you accept evolution, but only within large orders of life forms? So, like, all fish might have a common ancestor? And ditto with amphibians?
GO
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 10:51am PT
|
We're back to this.
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:22pm PT
|
"OK, How do you know that the Bible is "God's word?"
Fulfillment of prophecy and lots of it, personal experience of confirmation, the testimony of many. But don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the creation/evolution debate is very relevant to what the Bible has to say. Read for yourself. I believe it will change your life.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:53pm PT
|
Granite Climber, jesus's words work.... : )
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 01:37am PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!