Experiment shows evolution can sometimes be surprisingly predictable

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your logic is illogical. That is the same problem the evil-lutionists have and why they can not see the forest for the trees. God has staked his claim as creator and owner of the universe and all that is in it and there is no proof that it is not so. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the evil-lutionists to prove otherwise and they have failed miserably.

God has staked his claim as creator and owner of the universe and all that is in it and there is no proof that it is not so.

And there is no proof that it is so -and what has this got to do with the proof I just given that your logic is wrong?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your logic is illogical. That is the same problem the evil-lutionists have and why they can not see the forest for the trees. God has staked his claim as creator and owner of the universe and all that is in it and there is no proof that it is not so. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the evil-lutionists to prove otherwise and they have failed miserably.

You seem to be saying that because it's impossible to disprove the existence of God that the burden of proof is on the side of Science. The problem is that it's also impossible to prove the existence of God, so what you said doesn't follow.

The time limit of 6,000 years is implausibly low, the standard age quoted for the earth is four and a half billion years - so Science would have to be 6 orders of magnitude out on some basic measurements. There are organisms older than 6,000 years (take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_living_organism).

Originally posted by DeepThought
You seem to be saying that because it's impossible to disprove the existence of God that the burden of proof is on the side of Science. The problem is that it's also impossible to prove the existence of God, so what you said doesn't follow.

The time limit of 6,000 years is implausibly low, the standard age quoted for the earth is four and a half bill ...[text shortened]... older than 6,000 years (take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_living_organism).

The datings have been done to agree with the evil-lutionists worldview because no one can prove such ages. One must believe in those ages and that is termed religion and not science by the scientists. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The datings have been done to agree with the evil-lutionists worldview because no one can prove such ages. One must believe in those ages and that is termed religion and not science by the scientists. 😏

Prove you are not an assshole.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Prove you are not an assshole.

Pray to God if you want a miracle. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pray to God if you want a miracle. 😏

That proof would indeed be a miracle. It might even convert a few here on these forums!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe these examples are adaptations and not really mutations. 😏

Fortunately science doesn't depend on your belief system. You are out of the loop. There is no loop for you and science. Your pathetic bleating here has no traction. Go back to trolling the spiritual forum.

Originally posted by humy
arr yes, that's called "parallel evolution"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution ) .
Actually, come to think of it, the known observed examples of parallel evolution in nature is further evidence of evolution can sometimes be very predictable -somehow that never occurred to me before until just now. Pretty obvious now I think about it.

The tenrecs of madagascar are pretty amazing. Filling environmental niches
filled by a diverse range of creatures on the mainland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_hedgehog_tenrec

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The tenrecs of madagascar are pretty amazing. Filling environmental niches
filled by a diverse range of creatures on the mainland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_hedgehog_tenrec

that's amazing -it looks just like a hedgehog but I take it that it is not closely related -a good example of parallel evolution.

Originally posted by humy
Agree. I don't know why I bother debating with creationists knowing that it will be futile -something psychological I guess -perhaps the need to 'put the record straight'.

It's entertaining to a third party such as myself, but that may not be enough to keep responding to the self proclaimed record straightener. Cheers to you and the others for the info, btw

Originally posted by sonhouse
Fortunately science doesn't depend on your belief system. You are out of the loop. There is no loop for you and science. Your pathetic bleating here has no traction. Go back to trolling the spiritual forum.

If you guys would get off your duffs and do some evil-lution research to determine once and for all the truth of the matter, then we could solve this disagreement with real science. However, all y'all do is shout "Evil-lution is a proven fact!" which proves only that it is a belief system.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you guys would get off your duffs and do some evil-lution research to determine once and for all the truth of the matter, then we could solve this disagreement with real science. However, all y'all do is shout "Evil-lution is a proven fact!" which proves only that it is a belief system.

I recommended a book on evolution for you too read over a year ago, have you read it yet?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I recommended a book on evolution for you too read over a year ago, have you read it yet?

You apparently are referring to "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne.

I read the introduction which I already told you I had problems with and became busy with many other things and eventually forgot about it until you mentioned it here. So I decided to at least read the first chapter to actually see what he was saying and he started out with things that i could agree with like the following:

If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives. Squids and flatfish change color and pattern to blend in with theirsurroundings, becoming invisible to predator and prey. Bats have radar to home in on insects at night. Hummingbirds, which can hover in place and change position in an instant, are far more agile than any human helicopter, and have long tongues to sip nectar lying deep within flowers. And the flowers they visit also appear designed—to use hummingbirds as sex aids. For, while the hummingbird is busy sipping nectar, the flower attaches pollen to its bill, enabling it to fertilize the next flower that the bird visits. Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear. What does all this seem to imply? A master mechanic, of course.

This conclusion was most famously expressed by the eighteenth-century English philosopher William Paley. If we came across a watch lying on the ground, he said, we would certainly recognize it as the work of a watchmaker. Likewise, the existence of well-adapted organisms and their intricate features surely implied a conscious, celestial designer—God.

He then quotes Darwin and states that Darwin had a different conclusion and gives the following defintion of evolution which I also basically agree with:

Your Authors Definition Of Evolution

In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a selfreplicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

You already know that I do not believe in evolution and I understand his definition, which would also include apes becoming men. So why should I read any further if it is going to be filled with propaganda in an attempt to turn a lie into the truth or vice versa? I already know there is no proof that any kind of creature turning into another kind of creature and so it seems pointless to read further.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently are referring to "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne.

I read the introduction which I already told you I had problems with and became busy with many other things and eventually forgot about it until you mentioned it here. So I decided to at least read the first chapter to actually see what he was saying and he started out with things th ...[text shortened]... d of creature turning into another kind of creature and so it seems pointless to read further.

Stop being a blowhard and read the book.

William Paley remains the classic source of the argument for design. He was well known in the Nineteenth Century and indeed Charles Darwin occupied his rooms at university. There is nothing in Paley's writing that was not considered at the time when alternative views were developed.

If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives.

What struck Alfred Wallace, working in South East Asia in the 1850s, was that this claim of Paley's was simply not the case and he found countless counter-examples. But he was especially struck that in that region there were species in one area which occupied the same ecological niches as drastically different species in areas not far away. It was obvious that they represented alternative solutions to the same challenges and so that neither was "perfect" at all.

Wallace suggested that there had been separate evolutionary histories above and below a geographical line between Asia and Australia. What Wallace did not know and could not have guessed at that time was the reason for this - which was that he was working on the boundary between the Asian and the Australian land masses and that their totally separate evolutionary histories were due to continental drift - something only put forward a century later.

With the benefit of our understanding continental drift, we now have a clear explanation of the differences between species in Asia and Australia which the intelligent design theory simply has no reason for at all. That is one of many good scientific reasons that the intelligent design argument fails.