Evolution Test!

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy

Forgive me if I find it difficult to believe, since most PhD students would have a slightly different approach to discussion and research.
What are you a doctor of and where are you studying?


(Oh yeah the snake's legs thing was cool by the way I'd never seen that before)

I would have suggested it allowed them to take advantage of a particular niche that limbed reptiles couldn't. You can't just say "limbs are better and more advanced", each is an advantage in different situations.

Azy why don't you tell me about your Job?
What are you?Are you studying or working?What?
I told you enought......if you are a men of understanding!

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you DR. Trax

I believe in one God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

I believe that he created each species in a complete way, and each species adapts to its natural and changing environment.

I do not believe that some kind of single cell life can come from no life at all without the help of God.

I cannot see how single cell life could evolve in stages over four billion years to the life we have today.

I still retain these beliefs despite all the arguments I have read to the contrary.

Take care

Eric

^ same

I want answer to those questions:


1.According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin’s bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

2. Natural Selection
According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

3. Detecting Design
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space.
Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems?
Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?


4. Molecular Machines
Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans?
Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

5. Testability
What evidence would convince you that evolution is false?
If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?


Thanks!

Genes can change eh?

We call that evolution in these here parts y'all.

First off can I say I appreciate the effort you've put into putting forward some clear questions Well, cut and pasted some anyway, but still, I like it.

There is no cut and paste at all,it is from your ignorance thinking.....
So you are here saying that you are a smart boy,but everyone is stupid!
Remember this: Do not never guess,it is better for you...be sure than say!

Transitional fossils link - there are a great many and that is only a small section of them.

Yes, the fossil record contains organisms that can be placed in a progression suggesting gradual change.
But most of these progressions result from arbitrary picking and choosing among the totality of fossils. With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found.
Also, such progressions invariably come from organisms with the same basic body plan. In the “evolution” of the horse, we are always dealing with horse-like organisms. And even with the “evolution” of reptiles into mammals, we are dealing with land-dwelling vertebrates sharing many common structures.
What we don’t see in the fossil record is animals with fundamentally different body plans evolving from a common ancestor. For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.
The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion.
In a very brief window of time during the geological period known as the Cambrian, virtually all the basic animal types appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no trace of evolutionary ancestors.
The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution
that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.”

He knows this because evolution has been shown to have happened, see question 1. Things appear to be designed for a purpose because the organisms that best fit this purpose survive, and the others don't, or do less well.

Wrong!
The great fallacy of evolution is that it claims all the benefits of design without the need for actual design.
In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection.
But nature has no power to choose. Real choices involve
deliberation, that is, some consideration of future possibilities and consequences.
But natural selection is incapable of looking to the future. Instead, it acts on the spur of the moment, based solely on what the environment right now deems fit.
It cannot plan for the future.
It is incapable of deferring success or gratification.
And yet, so limited a process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers.
There’s no evidence that natural selection is up to the task. Natural selection is fine for explaining certain small-scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to environmental changes.
It can take existing structures and hone them. But it can’t explain how you get complex structures in the first place.
And look what cell biologist Franklin Harold writes, “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Remember the phrase “wishful speculations” whenever anyone starts touting the wonder-working power of natural selection.

Biologists shouldn't start out looking for anything, they should make observations and then draw conclusions.

WHY?Explain...

They would most likely have evolved by gradual changes caused by errors in replicated, or simple molecules attaching to others. Could they have features beyond the reach of evolution? So far it hasn't been shown that any definitely could not have evolved. Just because we can't explain every minute detail at this point doesn't mean it couldn't or didn't happen.

Take, for instance, the bacterial flagellum, which is now referred to as the “Icon of Intelligent Design” by some evolutionists because it has been so effectively used to criticize evolution. The bacterial flagellum is a marvel of nanoengineering.
Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard refers to it as “the most efficient machine in the universe.”
The flagellum is a little bi-directional motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 20,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn.
It requires approximately 40 protein parts for its construction. If any of the parts are missing or not available in the right proportions, no functional flagellum will form. So, how did it evolve?

Despite thousands of research articles that have been written about the structure and function of the flagellum, biologists don’t have a clue how it could have evolved.
You have only one straw at which you continually grasp when trying to explain how the flagellum might have evolved, namely, that the flagellum contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria.
Having found this sub-structure, evolutionists merrily conclude that the microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum.

Such pathetic lapses in logic are everywhere in the evolutionary literature. The challenge for evolutionary theory is not to find components of such systems that could be grist of natural selection’s mill.
Rather, it is to provide detailed, testable, step-by-step scenarios whereby such components could reasonably have come together to bring about the marvels of nano-engineering that we find in systems like the flagellum.
What exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a flagellum?

To see what’s at stake, consider what exactly has to happen to a motor to transform it into a motorcycle.
Sure, there are a number of steps that can transform a motor into a motorcycle.
And there probably are a number of steps that can transform a microsyringe into a flagellum. But what are those steps?
How gradual is the progression?
And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design?
Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

Peace!

The Fallacy of Vestigial Organs
For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.
The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

All instances of vestigial organs have been disproved in time. For example the semicircular fold in the eye, which was mentioned in the Origins as a vestigial structure, has been shown to be fully functional in our time, though its function was unknown in Darwin's time. This organ lubricates the eyeball.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered". The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ", was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought against infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997: "Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection."
It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx. In the years that followed, it was realised that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children, and that the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone glands. All of these were once conside-red to be "vestigial organs". Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.
There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the appendix does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this logical error as follows:

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?

Beside all of this, the claim that an organ which is not used atrophies and disappears over time carries a logical inconsistency within it. Darwin was aware of this inconsistency, and made the following confession in The Origin of Species:

There remains, however, this difficulty.

After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated?

It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless.
Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give.

Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body, since human beings did not evolve from other creatures as a result of chance, but were created in their current, complete, and perfect form.