| CARVIEW |
I can get really specific about the events required for evolution to be true. We don’t need millions of events. All we need is one and that is that without a clear scientifically credentialed explanation of biogenesis, evolution has nothing but stories. You too, can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t make Darwinism true. The fact of the matter is that evolution from common descent pretends to be scientific, but it is entirely philosophical. The roots of Evolution are ancient. They began long before Huxley, Darwin and his grandfather. Evolution is a Pagan religion that has always been, and will always be at war with the Christian God.
]]>Actually you are really off the mark about millions of events required to cause a change (you could be more specific than your classification of stuff). Normally it only requires one very simple thing, like a change in the color of tree bark or a change in water level or temprature, to cause change. Frankly, you can believe whatever you want but that does not make it true.
]]>a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer
b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot
a+b= the ape need a designer
or even a self replicat watch.the evolution side always say that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself
plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?
the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.
but there is no step wise from car to airplan
evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other
check this site
]]>the creator cares so much that this fictional invention bred and took care of Hitler and left him torture and kill men, women and children… what a beautiful creed!
]]>Thanks for stopping by and reading my blog. As you may have noticed from my lack of posting, I have nearly lost interest in the debate.
Could you please enlighten me on all the progress that intelligent design has made in the last couple of years? Could you also point out the failures of evolutionary theory? I really don’t see how evolution was a dead theory since it’s arrival.
]]>” no matter how much more evidence for evolution becomes available”..
What the hell? Are you kidding, RIGHT? In fact, as the time passes, the evolutionary wishful thinking is dying, being overcome by new researches and scientific discovers, each desperate evolution claim is heading to a miserable ending, no surprise, evolution is a dead theory from the beginning…
I agree with the observable science of micro-evolution, and am a firm supporter of Natural Selection. I’m a paleontologist, and I have NOT seen any CONVINCING evidence for ANY transitional species in the Fossil record. In other words, evolution on a macro level is Not observed in science. It is, however, still a theory often taught as fact.
We know there is plenty of genetic room for adaptation in DNA, but there is still no evidence for a creature becoming (turning into) another type of creature.
This is especially true via mutation, where as some mutations are beneficial, most are not. Information is NOT added to the DNA by mutation, the organism actually looses (though it is not a permanent loss) information by a mutation copied in RNA transfer. This is a perfect example of what we observe with canine. What suggests that these dogs are actually different species? Just because they can’t all interbreed? A terrible definition of “species” notwithstanding, dogs are still dogs. Even though Bears share many convergences with canines, they are still bears. However, there is plenty evidence of convergences across different types of creatures; similarities that may have adapted across numerous “species” and/or families, has No trace evidence of a dolphin evolving into a whale, or a dog into a dolphin for that matter. Therefore, there is something to be said about the use of the words “according to their kinds” in the Bible. As a species IS more difficult to universally define there may be something to this broad taxonomy don’t you agree?
To Luke, on the contrary, I have seen “species” that are virtually unchanged in the fossil record. Some, more recently, have actually been found to be extant and show hardly any observable difference at all. The Coelacanth is a pretty good example and you can find its remains all over the Devonian. Coelacanthiforms do have some minor differences between “species,” what is currently accepted as the definition of a species. Cumulative observations on coelacanthiform morphology are minor. This is just one example.
The same could be said for many other Families in the fossil record. Tyrannosauridae, Diplodocidae, etc. All have slight variations that do not always suggest a different “species.” New evidence for Apatosaurus and Diplodocus suggests that the different morphologies are actually related to gender vs. species. In all actuality, we only have about 50-60 different types of dinosaurs; even if there exist many variations of the type “species.”
Hybridization is a whole other topic, but can be viewed as relevant here as well. Plant “species” are even more difficult to define due to the almost limitless possibilities for reproduction.
Using BSC (The Biological Species Concept),the Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept, or Phylogenetic Species Concepts have not proven to be universal in standard.
I think, that it will be some time, before we will discover any solid method for describing a “species” universally in nature.