Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

[ZarathustraDK]

Bah, it's a sticky, didn't notice the date.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Gah, again with the 'missing links'-arguments.

Don't you guys see that you ask for the impossible when you demand the missing link? If scientists find an organism dated and accepted to be the 1.5 million year old link between something 2 million years old and 1 million years old, believers will simply point to the timespan between 2 mio <-> 1.5 mio y old, 1.5 mio <-> 1 mio y old and ask for a missing link there. This is a neverending regress, and in the end believers will have demanded that scientists account for every single living organism to any time with a fossil record, which is not practically possible.

Well actually the problem is, that as out knowledge advances, the gaps grow bigger rather then smaller as you suggest! over the years the tree of descent has been falsified numerous times. Every time it was, they made a new corrected tree, and often that new tree suggests even more intermediate species. A second counterargument, links are missing not only in terms of timespan, but also in terms of shapes intermediate stages. For example, did the elephant evolve directly from the hippopotamus and/or rhino, or were there several intermediate species? To go directly from one to the other would require a whole bunch of changes in terms of bones-structure alone, not to mention all the other differences. So why hasn't there been found traces of intermediate steps there (and in many different places of the tree as well).

My views on evolution

 

[ranma1/2]

Well actually the problem is, that as out knowledge advances, the gaps grow bigger rather then smaller as you suggest!

actually no, we become more knowledgeable of what we dont know perhaps but we do fill in more and more peices to a puzzle that we dont know what it looks like.

over the years the tree of descent has been falsified numerous times.
not even once. Got a sourece for this claim? Scientific journal would be great.
Now im sure as we have learned more parts of the phylogenic tree are updated but thats about all i can think of.

Every time it was, they made a new corrected tree, and often that new tree suggests even more intermediate species.
thats science and thats not falsifying the tree.

A second counterargument, links are missing not only in terms of timespan, but also in terms of shapes intermediate stages. For example, did the elephant evolve directly from the hippopotamus and/or rhino, or were there several intermediate species?
To go directly from one to the other would require a whole bunch of changes in terms of bones-structure alone, not to mention all the other differences. So why hasn't there been found traces of intermediate steps there (and in many different places of the tree as well).

no scientists that has a clue about evolution believes there was this sudden elephant.
My views on evolution

i really suggest reading about evolution through a real scientific source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[Trumble]

For example, did the elephant evolve directly from the hippopotamus and/or rhino, or were there several intermediate species? To go directly from one to the other would require a whole bunch of changes in terms of bones-structure alone, not to mention all the other differences. So why hasn't there been found traces of intermediate steps there (and in many different places of the tree as well).

Steve, this really is total nonsense. Nobody has even suggested that the elephant evolved from either hippopotamus or rhino, so of course there are no 'intermediate steps' between any of them. You seem to be picking them out just because they are all big, and grey!

Let's look at an 'elephant' site (rather than 'creationist' or 'evolutionist' site)

Elephant Information Repository

Fascinating stuff. Did you know that

Interestingly, the Asian elephant is more closely related to the extinct mammoth than to the African elephant

or that

Interestingly, based on both morphological and biochemical evidence, it is agreed that the manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes are the closest living relatives of the today's elephants. It is incredible to believe given the vastly different sizes, external appearance and the fact that they occupy completely different habitats.

EDIT: talking of hippos, elephants, manatees and such, in decidely spooky fashion this story caught my eye today; Elephant had aquatic ancestor

An ancient ancestor of the elephant from 37 million years ago lived in water and had a similar lifestyle to a hippo, a fossil study has suggested.

The animal was said to be similar to a tapir, a hoofed mammal which looks like a cross between a horse and a rhino. Experts from Oxford University and Stony Brook University, New York, analysed chemical signatures preserved in fossil teeth. These indicated that the animal grazed on plants in rivers or swamps. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could shed light on the lifestyle and behaviour of modern elephants.

Dr Erik Seiffert, co-author of the study, told BBC News: "It has often been assumed that elephants have evolved from fully terrestrial ancestors and have always had this kind of a lifestyle. "Now we can really start to think about how their lifestyle and behaviour might have been shaped by a very different kind of existence in the distant past. "It could help us to understand more about the origins of the anatomy and ecology of living elephants."

DNA evidence suggests that elephants are related to seagoing manatees and dugongs, and another land-based mammal, the rabbit-like hyrax.

Another piece slotted into what is indeed a very large and complex puzzle!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

i really suggest reading about evolution through a real scientific source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Oh come on Ranma, that is so low of you. First of all you shouldn't judge arguments based on where they come from, but based on their own merit. If you want to not believe in a freewebs site I made but do believe in a berkley site, just because its got a fancy name, then go ahead. But don't expect that dubble standard to fly in here. Here one would expect arguments to be judged by their own merit, not by who made them. Second of all there's a huge difference in the way we presented our links. I added my link after making my arguments in addition for those interested. You just basicly said; "you're wrong just look here". That's arguing by link, that's even more low discrediting source rather then merit of arguments.

Steve, this really is total nonsense. ...

I admit I didn't give much thought to the example. I took the first thing that entered my haead and messed up there. But nevertheless the argument still stands. The argument being that missing links is not as much a matter of finding bones out of every era, but more a matter of finding intermediate topology in bones. Which is a perfectly valid refutation for ZarathustraDK's earlier comment, regardless of my bad example.

 

[ranma1/2]

Oh come on Ranma, that is so low of you. First of all you shouldn't judge arguments based on where they come from, but based on their own merit. If you want to not believe in a freewebs site I made but do believe in a berkley site, just because its got a fancy name, then go ahead.

im not, why do think i do. Berkley is a well known univeristy. If your rejecting that site then i think your the one that hasthe double standard. Scientists have that odd thing of actually supporting there work with evidence. Seriously "Fancy name" is that your argument?


But don't expect that dubble standard to fly in here. Here one would expect arguments to be judged by their own merit, not by who made them.
Yes and thats why yours fails.

Second of all there's a huge difference in the way we presented our links. I added my link after making my arguments in addition for those interested. You just basicly said; "you're wrong just look here".
well your argument pretty much showed your ignorance in evolution. Its pretty clear you dont know much about it. The link i gave you is a good one that should help you learn more.

That's arguing by link, that's even more low discrediting source rather then merit of arguments.
Im not arguing anything, im trying to give you the resources to better educate yourself.

I.... The argument being that missing links is not as much a matter of finding bones out of every era, but more a matter of finding intermediate topology in bones. Which is a perfectly valid refutation for ZarathustraDK's earlier comment, regardless of my bad example.

im unclear as to what your saying here. COuld you please clarify?

OThe reason i gave you a good scientific source. (well basic source) is because they have done thework, theyhave dont the research and they have that availble.

 

[ranma1/2]

ok here is a reall quick review of your belief. im sure i made many mistakes but thats one reason why i provide links to better writers than me.

The theistic agenda.
Let us say for the argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution is true, how would that change the theist his paradigm?...
The atheistic agenda.
Now, again for the sake of argument let us assume the opposite extreme, that tomorrow every single part of biological evolution turns out to be false…..
Seriously, theistic. Atheistic agenda? EAC? Evolution does not equal atheism.
That’s all I have to say about this part other than its an attempt to create some non existent validity for ID that it fails at…

Micro evolution Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

This here also shows where you get your info on evolution.
Abio is not part of evolution. Evolution takes place after you have life. For all it matters we could have been placed here by blue 3 legged aliens all named bill. Evolution takes place after you have life.
Macro is micro on a long time scale. Imagine micro is walking to your fridge and macro is walking to NewYork from LA. Your argument is that you cant one butyou can do the other.
Common descent, supported by evidence. (fossils, dna, geology ect…) Falsifiable (bunnies in the Cambrian layers, humans with dinosaurs) and as provable as you can prove anything. The except details are unknown but as stated earlier, we got a HUGE puzzle , no picture and not all of the pieces.

Out of thin air, and prebiotic soup
Abio not evo. No need to go into this.

One big happy family
Common decent, is supported by tons of evidence as stated before. This seems to be the biggest problem religious individuals tend to have with evo. (what im related to an ape..!!!)

Irreducibly complex.
Pretty much this argument is one from incredulity. ( don’t knowhow this happened so god did it.)
And since im not nearly as educated in this as actual scientist I have no problem posting links to resources that go over this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Argument from comparison:
The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another.
Im not sure where you got this argument, are you referring to morphology or those that have similar structures?

Your argument that a designer could have also designed them fails without any evidence.
Not to mention a perfect being (god lets say) that has infin resources and infi time has no need to copy past designs when he can make better ones. We poor humans do.

Not only that but when you compare the we have fused dna that seems and odd way for a god to make us based off of chimps. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Not to mention that these beings did not exists at the same time and instead they fit in the appropriate geological column for their time period.

Argument from unintelligent design:
This isn't really scientific but philosophical. The argument goes like this: "Creation is flawed, in the sense that it's poorly designed. There are many shortcomings and imperfections. If we would have truly been created, we would have been perfect rather then imperfect."

I think its an important question, if a perfect being made something wouldn’t it be perfect?
Surely it could make something perfect. Can you tell me how a perfect being can make imperfection?

Argument from useless design:
This simply goes that organs or structures have gotten reduced to no use. Not NO USE only.
Vestigial structures do exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structures

 

[Abdul Fattah]

im not, why do think i do. Berkley is a well known univeristy. If your rejecting that site then i think your the one that hasthe double standard. Scientists have that odd thing of actually supporting there work with evidence. Seriously "Fancy name" is that your argument?

I know that, and I don't oppose theories that come with evidence. I oppose theories that come without evidence. Theories that don't even deserve the name "theory" and are actually nothing but speculation. And if you prefer berkley's speculation, then that is a double standard.

But don't expect that dubble standard to fly in here. Here one would expect arguments to be judged by their own merit, not by who made them.
Yes and thats why yours fails.

No it doesn't my argument was very simple and didn't even talk about source, you're the one who brought the whole "oh you have a bad source"thing up so don't tell me its my failure.

well your argument pretty much showed your ignorance in evolution. Its pretty clear you dont know much about it. The link i gave you is a good one that should help you learn more.

Again trying to attack the arguer rather then the argument, very mature Ranma...

That's arguing by link, that's even more low discrediting source rather then merit of arguments.
Im not arguing anything, im trying to give you the resources to better educate yourself.

Oh that's Bs and you know it. If your intention was really to educate me you would have sent me a Pm saying, here's an interesting link I'd like you to look at. You wouldn't have but into an argument and replied to the argument: "Here's a better source."

Seriously, theistic. Atheistic agenda? EAC? Evolution does not equal atheism.
That’s all I have to say about this part other than its an attempt to create some non existent validity for ID that it fails at…

You're fighting a strawmen. Nowhere in that text does it say evolution=atheism. I never made such claims. The introduction of that paragraph clearly said: As you might have noticed evolution has been a hot topic for decades, ever since the beginning of it, and it continues to be widely discussed today. And all to often proponents of evolution like to create the illusion as if the debate on evolution is a debate of science vs. religion. But let's look at what's really at stake shall we?
So the remainder of the paragraph is a counter to that misconception, not an argument against evolution as you said.

This here also shows where you get your info on evolution. Abio is not part of evolution. Evolution takes place after you have life.

No that's where you are wrong. "Evolution" as a single word can refer to pretty much anything, like the evolution of language for example. Biological evolution refers to any evolution slightly related to biology. And evolution of the species, a term coined by darwin, only occurs like you said "after you already have life".

Macro is micro on a long time scale. Imagine micro is walking to your fridge and macro is walking to NewYork from LA. Your argument is that you cant one butyou can do the other.

Again you're misinformed and you turn out to be the one not knowing anything about it. Walking to the fridge and walking to L.A. both take the same proces: walking. Microevolution however uses a completely different proces as Macroevolution. Don't be deceived, although in both cases we are dealing with mutations, macroevolution relies on a whole different class of mutations then microevolution does. A better comparison would be: rolling to your fridge in the other room with your weelchair, or rolling up the stairs with your weelchair.

Common descent, supported by evidence. (fossils, dna, geology ect…)

That isn't evidence at all, the fossils, the DNA the geology supports my view just as well as your view!!! Fossils don't prove that one evolved out of the other. The only thing fossils prove is which animal was present at which area. How it got there is left completelty open to interpretation. DNA doesn't support anything. We have only mapped DNA for 4 species, let alone done an in depth analysis of DNA comparison of first cell to human. every single piece of so called "evidence" is completely open to interpretation. Just because evolutionsts prefer to interpret it their way doesn't make common descent provable.

Falsifiable (bunnies in the Cambrian layers, humans with dinosaurs) and as provable as you can prove anything. The except details are unknown but as stated earlier, we got a HUGE puzzle , no picture and not all of the pieces.

Again, you completely dropped the ball. The tree of descent is falsified all the time. However, every time we encounter a finding that contradicts previous tree's evolutionists simply adjust the tree to the new findings! So the falsifiability is flawed for two reasons.
1. It's circular, if the current tree is based on which skeleton was found in which area, then we cannot use those same finds to falsify the assumption.
2. The falsifiability is relative, because given small adjustments the theory can survive these "falsifications". That means they aren't really falsifications, a true falsification would render the theory indefenitly false.

Common decent, is supported by tons of evidence as stated before.

Yeah, we just haven't found it yet, but if we keep looking ^_^

Irreducibly complex. Pretty much this argument is one from incredulity. ( don’t knowhow this happened so god did it.)

Another straw men your fighting, the argument is not: "we don't know, so God must have done it". The argument is: 'It's impossible to have occured through the methods of the theory of evolution of the species.". I don't know if you're making up these strawmen on purpose, or wheter you're just having dificulties understanding the theories. But I'd advice you to be more carefull, especially since you have this arrogant you-know-nothing-about-this-so-listen-to-me attitude.

And since im not nearly as educated in this as actual scientist I have no problem posting links to resources that go over this.

and since you're not willing to make your homework, and since arguing by link isn't allowed in this forum according to the rules you agreed to, and since I have already pointed this out in the previous post, I'm not even going to waste my time.

Argument from comparison: The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another.
Im not sure where you got this argument, are you referring to morphology or those that have similar structures?

It's an assumption that runs like a silver lining throughout the whole theory. without it, many of the arguments and so called "evidence" fail completely.

Your argument that a designer could have also designed them fails without any evidence.

First of all, an argument doesn't fail because of a lack of evidence. A theory needs evidence to be considered scientific, an argument needs logic. Big distinction. Secondly, I never claimed that my alternative beliefs are scientific, I'm simply pointing out that neither is common descent scientific!

Not to mention a perfect being (god lets say) that has infin resources and infi time has no need to copy past designs when he can make better ones. We poor humans do.

Your argument is flawed. You assume that a copy of a design can't be perfect. this is of course ludacrous. The reason the design is so simular is because it's so perfect. So the perfect design for one specie is simular to the perfect design of the other specie. Just like how the perfect design for a bridge over one river would probably be very simular to the perfect design of the bridge over another river. The reason it is simular, is because simular criteria an problems require a simular perfect solution, and not because God would have to resort to copy out of shortage of designs.

Not only that but when you compare the we have fused dna that seems and odd way for a god to make us based off of chimps. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Like I said simular requirements and goal require the solutions to be simular if both solutions should be perfect. It's not a question of basing one off the other, it's a question of getting simular results from a simular thoughtproces.

I think its an important question, if a perfect being made something wouldn’t it be perfect?
Surely it could make something perfect. Can you tell me how a perfect being can make imperfection?

I don't need to answer your question as it isn't really directed to me. I hold that all creation are perfect.

This simply goes that organs or structures have gotten reduced to no use. Not NO USE only.
Vestigial structures do exists.

No they don't each structure has and always had a function and again, stop arguing by link. If you're not going to take the time to write your own arguments and present them, I'm not going to take the time to refute every website on the web you can find. Not to mention again, it's against forum rules!

 

[ranma1/2]

I know that, and I don't oppose theories that come with evidence. I oppose theories that come without evidence. Theories that don't even deserve the name "theory" and are actually nothing but speculation. And if you prefer berkley's speculation, then that is a double standard.

then you accept the theory of evolution since it does have evidence.


No it doesn't my argument was very simple and didn't even talk about source, you're the one who brought the whole "oh you have a bad source"thing up so don't tell me its my failure.

well its clear that your source of information abotu evolution is a bad source since your understanding is heavily flawed.

Again trying to attack the arguer rather then the argument, very mature Ranma...

hi mr kettle.

Oh that's Bs and you know it. If your intention was really to educate me you would have sent me a Pm saying, here's an interesting link I'd like you to look at. You wouldn't have but into an argument and replied to the argument: "Here's a better source."

no, and since this is a public forum with others reading it it helps that they can go to the same locations and get the same info. I have given you a univeristy quailty source.

You're fighting a strawmen. Nowhere in that text does it say evolution=atheism.

no but its clear that your trying to associate atheism and evolution or why even have it there?

No that's where you are wrong. "Evolution" as a single word can refer to pretty much anything,
Yes, but when we are talking about evolution in the terms of The Theory of evolutoin it has a limited def. BUt im sure you know that.

like the evolution of language for example.
and we are not talking about that.

Biological evolution refers to any evolution slightly related to biology.
And evolution of the species, a term coined by darwin, only occurs like you said "after you already have life".

and can you have biology without life?


Again you're misinformed and you turn out to be the one not knowing anything about it. Walking to the fridge and walking to L.A. both take the same proces: walking
as does mirco and macro evo.

. Microevolution however uses a completely different proces as Macroevolution.
and that process is?

Don't be deceived, although in both cases we are dealing with mutations, macroevolution relies on a whole different class of mutations then microevolution does.

macro deals with an accumulation of mutations over a long period of time.

another anaology is counting.
micro. coutning 1 to 10.
macro 1-1,000,000,000,000,000
both use the same process, one jsut goes over a longer period of time.
...

That isn't evidence at all, the fossils, the DNA the geology supports my view just as well as your view!!!

how??
how do fossils, dna, geolgoy ect... support your view?

Fossils don't prove that one evolved out of the other. The only thing fossils prove is which animal was present at which area. How it got there is left completelty open to interpretation.

fossils, the age of the fossils, where they are found in geological layers all comibine to tell us when they likely existed.

DNA doesn't support anything. We have only mapped DNA for 4 species, let alone done an in depth analysis of DNA comparison of first cell to human. every single piece of so called "evidence" is completely open to interpretation. Just because evolutionsts prefer to interpret it their way doesn't make common descent provable.

sigh... i guess if you reject evidence you can say there is no evidence. We dont have to have completly mapped every species to do some basic comparisons. You seemed to ignore my link (source if you will) about human and ape fused chromosomes. "ah but your doing argument by links you say?, and if i posted every single thing this would be pages long. Stop with that silly argument and you can address the facts."


Again, you completely dropped the ball. The tree of descent is falsified all the time.

no its not. science corrects as we learn more but thats science. imagine once agian we ahve a huge puzzle with no picture but we can figure out roughly where peices go based on date, homological structures, dna ect..
as we get more peices we can better position those peices. We have yet to find a human peice next to a dinosaur.


However, every time we encounter a finding that contradicts previous tree's evolutionists simply adjust the tree to the new findings! So the falsifiability is flawed for two reasons.
Wait, news flash science corrects itself with new info. Duh.....
No scientists says this tree is set in stone. Lets go over this again.
Based on the data scientists have they place these puzzel pieces into as close to the correct spot that they can. As they gain more peices and more info they can more accuratly place these peices.
Your argument that jsut because we dont know exactly where these peices go since we dont knwo the exact picture makes the theory false is silly.

1. It's circular, if the current tree is based on which skeleton was found in which area, then we cannot use those same finds to falsify the assumption.
2. The falsifiability is relative, because given small adjustments the theory can survive these "falsifications". That means they aren't really falsifications, a true falsification would render the theory indefenitly false.


1. im not sure what your getting at here? the tree isnt based on one area but on knowledge about geolgy, dates, fossils, morphology ect....
2. precambrian bunnies would falsifiy the tree. falsifiable doesnt mean it has to be proven false but there are criteria for making it false.



Another straw men your fighting, the argument is not: "we don't know, so God must have done it". The argument is: 'It's impossible to have occured through the methods of the theory of evolution of the species.".

no your argument is that you dont see how these things can have evolved and therefore god must have made it. Behe tried this and was shot down. To date there is no IR structure out there.



Your argument is flawed. You assume that a copy of a design can't be perfect.

No, i assume that a perfect being can make a better design that exactly made to be perfect. (not to mention thefact that we are not perfectly designed so its obvious we were not made perfectly).

this is of course ludacrous. The reason the design is so simular is because it's so perfect.
show us this perfection you speak of. (why for instance did god give us the inability to produce vitamin C.)

So the perfect design for one specie is simular to the perfect design of the other specie.
show us this perfection. why are our perfect spines made for walking on all 4s and not made perfectly for walking upright? why does our perfect design require most humans to get their overcrowding molars removed? why does our perfect design have an appendix that has only a minor function from that of others?

Just like how the perfect design for a bridge over one river would probably be very simular to the perfect design of the bridge over another river. The reason it is simular, is because simular criteria an problems require a simular perfect solution, and not because God would have to resort to copy out of shortage of designs.

the reason human designed bridges are similar is because we have limited resources and knowledge. A being with perfect knowledge, unlimited resources and time has no excuse.


I don't need to answer your question as it isn't really directed to me. I hold that all creation are perfect.
that perfect cancer killing thousands all over the world.
that perfect aids killing children. that perfect storm , plaque, dead baby, crazy nutjob, lunatic ect... Gods got a screwed up sense of perfection.
perfect 1/20 eyesite, perfect heart attacks, perfect back problems, perfectly deluded ect....

No they don't each structure has and always had a function and again, stop arguing by link.
the link you ignored provided you a source on what vestigial structures are. You know provideding sources to your homework is usually required in school. I always try to do that. Vestigial structures are structures of reduced function. The appendix, human body hair, ostrick wings ect.. are structures that have reduced function from the past. (tell me when you see an ostrich fly)

If you're not going to take the time to write your own arguments and present them, I'm not going to take the time to refute every website on the web you can find. Not to mention again, it's against forum rules!

im sorry that your excuse is that you dont want to. But once again im provideding you the resources to better educate yourself on what

evolutoin is
macro evolution is
micro evolutoin is
vestigial structures is ect..

your posts clearly show that you have been misinformed.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

then you accept the theory of evolution since it does have evidence.

No, some sub theories have evidence. Evolution is a term refering to many theories, some of them proven some of them unproven. Some of them I accept some of them I do not, is this really so hard to understand? You'd think that after a few posts you'd get the picture...

well its clear that your source of information abotu evolution is a bad source since your understanding is heavily flawed.

No, it's not clear at all. All you've done is slander me, and posted links. My understanding is flawed according to your judgement. I counter that it is in fact your understanding that is flawed, this isn't getting us anywhere. Again, you'd do well to drop the arrogance.

Again trying to attack the arguer rather then the argument, very mature Ranma...
hi mr kettle.

The difference is I am in defending myself, so don't you try turning the tables on me.

no, and since this is a public forum with others reading it it helps that they can go to the same locations and get the same info. I have given you a univeristy quailty source.

Regardless, it still remains a reply to my argument, you quoted my argument. Said that it was wrong without stating why and droppped the link. That is arguing by links, so don't tell me that was not what you were doing.

no but its clear that your trying to associate atheism and evolution or why even have it there?

That is your interpretation. It is not clear that I'm trying to associate one with the other. And neither is that my intention. I put it there because it's a common misconception and a common argument. Learn to let go of the strawmans when they burn up ranma, lest you get blisters on your hands.

Biological evolution refers to any evolution slightly related to biology.
And evolution of the species, a term coined by darwin, only occurs like you said "after you already have life".
and can you have biology without life?

No, and I never said you would need biology without life. Fact still remains abiogenesis is part of biological evolution, but not part of evolution of the species. Your counter of biology without life doesn't change anything to that.

macro deals with an accumulation of mutations over a long period of time.

No, wrong. an accumulation of the simple mutations of microevolution cannot explain macroevolution. We're dealing with a different class of mutations there. So your analogy is flawed.

how??
how do fossils, dna, geolgoy ect... support your view?

How do they not? The point is they are indifferent to which of both views are right. That means, they cannot be put forth as evidence for either.

fossils, the age of the fossils, where they are found in geological layers all comibine to tell us when they likely existed.

Yes that's exactly what I said. But I don't necesairly disagree on which animal existed when and where. What I disagree on, is how some of them origenated.

sigh... i guess if you reject evidence you can say there is no evidence.

Sigh... i guess if you can reject it, that means it's not really evidence in the first place.

We dont have to have completly mapped every species to do some basic comparisons.

what you are refering to here is not genotype comparison but fenotype comparison. When we do a basic comparison, we don't compare DNA but karyotypes! (all this is actually on the single page you briefly refuted it amazes me that it seems like all this info went straight trough you, did you actually read the stuff or skimmed trough the text looking for possible mistakes to try and discredit me). Anyway, back on topic: Karyotypes. They are fomed by the histones that wind up DNA into chromosones. So in fact that's not evidence from genetics, thats comparing phenotypes and saying: "If two things look alike one must have origened from the other"

You seemed to ignore my link (source if you will) about human and ape fused chromosomes. "ah but your doing argument by links you say? and if i posted every single thing this would be pages long. Stop with that silly argument and you can address the facts."

Yes of course, you think I'm gonna take the time to read every link some absolute stranger posts on a forum? Let me explain how this really works. If you know what you're talking about, and know what is in the links, you should be able to formulate the gist of it in a couple of sentences. Then you may leave the link merely for the purpose of checking up. If that's to much work for you, then don't get into the wet works.

no its not. science corrects as we learn more but thats science.

Yes I understand that, but this shows why your falsification isn't really a falsification. The falsification only falsifies a very specific tree, that can easily be abandoned without abandoning the main idea of common descent. So in fact, these very specific trees are falsifiable (and they are falsified all the time); but the concept of common descent itself is not falsifiable at all. your story about the puzzles is all very exciting, but that doesn't change the fact, this puzzle isn't falsifiable.

Wait, news flash science corrects itself with new info. Duh.....

Yeah well news flash, it's not science thats at stake here. DUH...

No scientists says this tree is set in stone.

Yes, exactly! That proves that the falsifiability is a pipe dream, because falsifing the tree doesn't falsify common descent one bit.

Your argument that jsut because we dont know exactly where these peices go since we dont knwo the exact picture makes the theory false is silly.

No, my argument is not that it is false, my argument is that it is not falsifiable. You constantly fighting strawmen arguments, that's what silly.

1. im not sure what your getting at here? the tree isnt based on one area but on knowledge about geolgy, dates, fossils, morphology ect....

Which animal goes where in the tree is decided based on archeologic finds. So you can't use those same findings to falsifiy the theory.

no your argument is that you dont see how these things can have evolved and therefore god must have made it. Behe tried this and was shot down. To date there is no IR structure out there.

Stop trying to tell me what argument I'm making. The argument is: "There exist irreducible complex structures that could not have been made trough simple biological evolution alone." By which method it then did origenate I leave completely to your discretion. I find it sufficient to show the flaws in the theory, I feel no need to argue in favor for any alternatives. So my argument is, wheter you like that or not, what I say it is.

No, i assume that a perfect being can make a better design that exactly made to be perfect.

Yes, you assume so, whereas I assume that the existing design is already perfect and by defenition no better one exists. By what authority are your assumption superior to mine? To the extend even that based on these assumptions of you, you can arrogantly insult me for being ignorant?

(not to mention thefact that we are not perfectly designed so its obvious we were not made perfectly).

Or so you claim, whereas I hold that we are obviously perfect. But just holding an opinion doesn't make it true, so if you want your argument to be valid you'll need to prove that we are indeed not perfectly designed. Otherwise your argument is a slippery slope.

show us this perfection you speak of.

I don't need to show you, I'm taking the defensive position here, and the benefit of the doubt is sufficient for me. You're the one that needs imperfection to be showned if you want your arguments to hold ground.

(why for instance did god give us the inability to produce vitamin C.)

Because he didn't need to give us that ability. Because he wanted humans to constantly need food, not only vitamins, byt various foods. To remind them of the many bountys mankind has been given around him, and to remind him of his dependency on God's blessings. Just because you would prefer a design with the ability to produce vitamin C doesn't mean thta it would have fitted more perfectly in God's plans.

why are our perfect spines made for walking on all 4s and not made perfectly for walking upright?

Our spines are not made for walking on all fours, where did you get that idea? I challenge you to walk on hands and feet for a year, if you think that's what your anatomy suggests you to do. We'll see what your spine will have to say to that. And no, our spine is not made to walk up "perfectly' straight, but instead made in an angle, so that it would be easier for mankind to humble himself and harder for him to walk in pride. See even that's a blessing from God, it's pure perfection.

why does our perfect design require most humans to get their overcrowding molars removed?

The overcrowding of molars is not the standard. The design of the mounth is perfect. And many people have a mouth according to that design. However some people their mouths aren't according to these standard designs. This however doesn't mean the design itself is imperfect. That would make just as much sense as saying that blind people are proof that eyes have a bad design.

why does our perfect design have an appendix that has only a minor function from that of others?

It is there because it has a function. To you it might seem as a minor function, but that is not the issue here. Certainly perfection does not imply that ever single organ needs to have the exact same value. That would be an odd criteria for perfection.

the reason human designed bridges are similar is because we have limited resources and knowledge.

Wheter or not bridgedesigns are perfect or not is not the issue. The issue is that the best solution for one problem is often simular to the best solution for a simular problem. Or in simpler terms: "if it aint broken, don't fix it. You're assuming that perfection would be something exotic and extravagant and most importantly, something thta is very distinct and different for each other creature. Why would the perfect design for creature X need to be so different from the perfect design of creature Y? If both creature X and Y have the same function on earth, and are created for teh same purpose, why would your criteria for perfection be hat they are completely different from one another?

A being with perfect knowledge, unlimited resources and time has no excuse.

There is nothing that requires an excuse in the first place.

that perfect cancer killing thousands all over the world. that perfect aids killing children. that perfect storm , plaque,

Again, you are the one with an odd defenition and criteria for perfection. You're saying that God didn't create perfection bacause we're mortal? God wants to test us with a temporal life on earth, and give us a body for it. And your argument is that God screwed up by giving us a mortal body for this short period of time rather then giving us an immortal body for this period of time? Obviously death is a vital part of testing mankind on earth.

crazy nutjob, lunatic ect...

these are the results of free will, so now God screwed up by giving us free will.

You know provideding sources to your homework is usually required in school. I always try to do that.

Oh, so when you do your homework, do you give your teacher a piece of paper full of URL's; or do they want you to write your own report and provide the sources merely as back up so they could fact-check that what you say is indeed true?

The appendix, human body hair, ostrick wings ect.. are structures that have reduced function from the past. (tell me when you see an ostrich fly).

The appendix is not a vestigal organ and still has the same function it has always had.
Body hair is vestigal, but not due to evolution. It has been rendered vestigal due to social advancement, clothing!
As for ostriches; my argument was to discredit arguments in favor of evolution from apes to man. Since I believe man did not evolve from aper, I do not believe we carry any vestigal organs reminant from the apes. That doesn't mean however I can't accept ostriches having vestigal organs from evolving from other animals.

im sorry that your excuse is that you dont want to.

No, you're the one who doesn't want to do it and expects me to do his homework for you.

But once again im provideding you the resources to better educate yourself on what evolutoin is macro evolution is
micro evolutoin is vestigial structures is ect..

No, you're assuming that I am wrong without giving me the benefit of the doubt. That is pure arrogance. In debate it's considered courtacy to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. What you are saying is; "You're clearly wrong, and anything that you haven't brought up yet or that we haven't debated will defenitly be explained in that link, because the posibility that I am wrong doesn't exist. Obviously I'm not going to play that game. If you want to come in here and attack my posts and insult me for stupid, you'll have to either present your case or back out and apologise. I'm not going to refute every site you can find on google for you to weasel out.

your posts clearly show that you have been misinformed.

Your posts clearly show that you haven't payed close attention to anything I'm saying because your arrogance makes you dismiss any argument make before you even consider it.

 

[ranma1/2]

No, some sub theories have evidence. Evolution is a term refering to many theories, some of them proven some of them unproven. Some of them I accept some of them I do not, is this really so hard to understand? You'd think that after a few posts you'd get the picture...

why dont you be more clear then.
state which theories so there is no confusion.

..
That is your interpretation. It is not clear that I'm trying to associate one with the other. And neither is that my intention. I put it there because it's a common misconception and a common argument. Learn to let go of the strawmans when they burn up ranma, lest you get blisters on your hands.

i dont see how it was even related to evolution so it appears you were trying to make some sort of relation to it. If not fine. I gave my opinion.

No, and I never said you would need biology without life. Fact still remains abiogenesis is part of biological evolution
No its not. abiogensis may be a part of chemical evolutoin but not of biological. You cant have biology without life.

No, wrong. an accumulation of the simple mutations of microevolution cannot explain macroevolution. We're dealing with a different class of mutations there. So your analogy is flawed.

no we are talking about mutations over time. small changes eventually leading to entirely differnt properties. 1+1+1+1+1... you will eventually get to a billion.

How do they not? The point is they are indifferent to which of both views are right. That means, they cannot be put forth as evidence for either.
one is supported theother isnt.


Yes that's exactly what I said. But I don't necesairly disagree on which animal existed when and where. What I disagree on, is how some of them origenated.
and why do you disagree? religion.

...

what you are refering to here is not genotype comparison but fenotype comparison. When we do a basic comparison, we don't compare DNA but karyotypes! (all this is actually on the single page you briefly refuted it amazes me that it seems like all this info went straight trough you, did you actually read the stuff or skimmed trough the text looking for possible mistakes to try and discredit me).

actually i was referring to the fusion of our chromosomes. ill let you discredit yourself.

Anyway, back on topic: Karyotypes. They are fomed by the histones that wind up DNA into chromosones. So in fact that's not evidence from genetics, thats comparing phenotypes and saying: "If two things look alike one must have origened from the other"

sigh.. you dont have any undestanding of hte significance do you?


Yes of course, you think I'm gonna take the time to read every link some absolute stranger posts on a forum?

Yes I understand that, but this shows why your falsification isn't really a falsification. The falsification only falsifies a very specific tree, that can easily be abandoned without abandoning the main idea of common descent. So in fact, these very specific trees are falsifiable (and they are falsified all the time); but the concept of common descent itself is not falsifiable at all. your story about the puzzles is all very exciting, but that doesn't change the fact, this puzzle isn't falsifiable.

ok so your falisfication is that one peice is in the wrong spot. fine i agree with that. that one peice being in the wrong spot falsifies the entire tree no.

Yes, exactly! That proves that the falsifiability is a pipe dream, because falsifing the tree doesn't falsify common descent one bit.

falsifing part of the tree means part of the tree have been falsified. (and thus pruned). And usually a newer better model is then put it in its place.
(i seem to get the impression that you think cause we update the model as we learn the entire thing is bunk.)

No, my argument is not that it is false, my argument is that it is not falsifiable. You constantly fighting strawmen arguments, that's what silly.

it is falsibable, it just so happens that there is currently nothing out there to falsify it. LIke i said bunnies in the cambrian layer woudl do it. HUmans with dinosaurs.

Which animal goes where in the tree is decided based on archeologic finds. So you can't use those same findings to falsifiy the theory.

you mean that animal A is found to be older than anima G and G is never found in the same time period as A then we cant falsify it? Im pretty sure if we found G before or with A then that would go to falsifying it.
Humans found in the precambrian era would do too.

Stop trying to tell me what argument I'm making. The argument is: "There exist irreducible complex structures that could not have been made trough simple biological evolution alone." By which method it then did origenate I leave completely to your discretion. I find it sufficient to show the flaws in the theory, I feel no need to argue in favor for any alternatives. So my argument is, wheter you like that or not, what I say it is.

what structures are there? I know of any structures that have been deemed IC.


Yes, you assume so, whereas I assume that the existing design is already perfect and by defenition no better one exists. By what authority are your assumption superior to mine?

well lets look at flaws in the design, if there are flaws then thats a certain lack of perfection. If perhaps you were to define what you mean by perfection we can clear up this confusion. For me a perfect design would work perfectly. (without problems or errors) It would not break down, it could not be improved upon.(need for glasses) Perfection woudl be somthing that you could not add or subtract from to make better. Perfection would be something that does not create imperfection. Of course these are my ideas and i dont think its possible for perfection to exists. Now perhaps you can show how perfection can beget imperfection.


To the extend even that based on these assumptions of you, you can arrogantly insult me for being ignorant?
Im simply pointing out your understanding of evolution being different than the accepted understanding in the scientific community.
Or so you claim, whereas I hold that we are obviously perfect. But just holding an opinion doesn't make it true, so if you want your argument to be valid you'll need to prove that we are indeed not perfectly designed. Otherwise your argument is a slippery slope.
Ive shown with in reason that we are not perfect. (im sure you have noticed my missspellings and your own) that in itself should be enough. the fact that many of us have to wear some sort of corrective lenses to see properly. The fact that we die ect...

Now why dont you provide evidence that we are perfect. (prove your claim to a reasonable degree.)


I don't need to show you, I'm taking the defensive position here, and the benefit of the doubt is sufficient for me. You're the one that needs imperfection to be showned if you want your arguments to hold ground.
You do need to show your positive claim. The burden of proof is the one making the positive claim.
similarly if i were to claim i was god its not your burden to prove i am not god but mine to prove i am.

Because he didn't need to give us that ability. Because he wanted humans to constantly need food, not only vitamins, byt various foods.

sounds like an imperfection to me. why i bet a human that didnt need to eat, or need vitman c is certainly better than one that does.

To remind them of the many bountys mankind has been given around him, and to remind him of his dependency on God's blessings.

wouldnt a perfect creation not need to be reminded?

Just because you would prefer a design with the ability to produce vitamin C doesn't mean thta it would have fitted more perfectly in God's plans.


Our spines are not made for walking on all fours, where did you get that idea?
odd thing called evolution.

I challenge you to walk on hands and feet for a year, if you think that's what your anatomy suggests you to do. We'll see what your spine will have to say to that. And no, our spine is not made to walk up "perfectly' straight, but instead made in an angle, so that it would be easier for mankind to humble himself and harder for him to walk in pride. See even that's a blessing from God, it's pure perfection.

lol, oh our imperfect spines are made to perfectly worship right? our spines evolved from those originally ment to walk on all fours. (i should have been clearer my imperfect mistake.)

The overcrowding of molars is not the standard. The design of the mounth is perfect. And many people have a mouth according to that design. However some people their mouths aren't according to these standard designs. This however doesn't mean the design itself is imperfect. That would make just as much sense as saying that blind people are proof that eyes have a bad design.
Seems to be a major flaw to me. and yes blind people are evidence that humans are notperfectly designed.

It is there because it has a function. To you it might seem as a minor function, but that is not the issue here. Certainly perfection does not imply that ever single organ needs to have the exact same value. That would be an odd criteria for perfection.

Once agian please define perfection. I think a fair one is something that can not be improved on by taking or adding to , and can not create imperfection.


WhetHer or not bridge(space)designs are perfect or not is not the issue. The issue is that the best solution for one problem is often simular to the best solution for a simular problem. Or in simpler terms: "if it aint broken, don't fix it.

for us humanswith limited resources yes. but a good enough is not a perfect design. Or are you saying god is lazy? Could you explain then why god didnt make one pefect design for wings rather than several almost evolved looking forms (insects, birds, bats, gliders ect...)

You're assuming that perfection would be something exotic and extravagant and most importantly, something thta is very distinct and different for each other creature.
no. your saying that. im simply pointing out that we are not perfectly designed beings.


Why would the perfect design for creature X need to be so different from the perfect design of creature Y? If both creature X and Y have the same function on earth, and are created for teh same purpose, why would your criteria for perfection be That they are completely different from one another?
why should they appear to have evolved, why do certain structures vary depending on how they (evolved, wings. birds, bees, bats, gliders ect..)
....


Again, you are the one with an odd defenition and criteria for perfection. You're saying that God didn't create perfection bacause we're mortal?
well death does seem to be a big imperfection.

God wants to test us with a temporal life on earth, and give us a body for it. And your argument is that God screwed up by giving us a mortal body for this short period of time rather then giving us an immortal body for this period of time? Obviously death is a vital part of testing mankind on earth.
Obviously. (im not sure how to do therolly eye smily)


these are the results of free will, so now God screwed up by giving us free will.
no many of these are the result of brain disorders. and once again to hit on perfectoin. cant god make a being with free will that doesnt do bad? or is he not thatperfect?


Oh, so when you do your homework, do you give your teacher a piece of paper full of URL's; or do they want you to write your own report and provide the sources merely as back up so they could fact-check that what you say is indeed true?
im not writing a paper to a teacher.


The appendix is not a vestigal organ and still has the same function it has always had.
Body hair is vestigal, but not due to evolution. It has been rendered vestigal due to social advancement, clothing!
appendix is vestigial and as a matter of fact some people are born without it these days. Human body hair has become vestigial. It has reduced in size and no longer serves thesame function it once did. ( we do have as i recall the same number of folicles as our ape cousins "roughly")

As for ostriches; my argument was to discredit arguments in favor of evolution from apes to man.
why apes to man? personal reasons? do you think ostriches can fly or are they reduced function? (still keeps them warm, mating, fighting ect.. but no flying)

Since I believe man did not evolve from aper, I do not believe we carry any vestigal organs reminant from the apes. That doesn't mean however I can't accept ostriches having vestigal organs from evolving from other animals.
sounds like a personal issue then that is in conflict with science and knowledge.

..
No, you're assuming that I am wrong without giving me the benefit of the doubt. That is pure arrogance.
No im letting your words show that you are wrong.

In debate it's considered courtacy to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. What you are saying is; "You're clearly wrong, and anything that you haven't brought up yet or that we haven't debated will defenitly be explained in that link, because the posibility that I am wrong doesn't exist.

and why is that? why should i give you benefit of the doubt that you understand evolutoin when you clearly dont? Now ihappily admit that i dont understand it perfectly either but im much closer than you are.

Obviously I'm not going to play that game. If you want to come in here and attack my posts and insult me for stupid, you'll have to either present your case or back out and apologise. I'm not going to refute every site you can find on google for you to weasel out.
Sure whatever you want. Those darn universities are shaking in their pillars..


Your posts clearly show that you haven't payed close attention to anything I'm saying because your arrogance makes you dismiss any argument make before you even consider it.

well to be honest i admit i may have missed something (work and internet are poor bedfellows) but i m pretty sure ive gotten the gyst of it.


Oh and one more time. please define prefection.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

why dont you be more clear then. state which theories so there is no confusion.

I do believe in micro-evolution and macro-evolution, however I do have some reservations for the last, because I think there's still a lot of work in there and misconceptions that need to be straightened out.
I don't believe in common descent and abiogenesis.

i dont see how it was even related to evolution so it appears you were trying to make some sort of relation to it. If not fine. I gave my opinion.

It's related only in the sense that often when debating with layman evolutionists, they tend to bring this up. So the paragraph was only in anticipation of them.

No its not. abiogensis may be a part of chemical evolutoin but not of biological. You cant have biology without life.

The line between chemical evolution and biological is blurred. Both theories overlap. To give an example, consider the debate on whether or not a virus is a living organism. Certainly the origin of life is a matter that is thought in biology classes on universities in here, and not in chemistry classes.

no we are talking about mutations over time. small changes eventually leading to entirely differnt properties. 1+1+1+1+1... you will eventually get to a billion.

Well; lets consider the normal mutations we deal with in micro evolution. For example a cross mutation where one RNA string that says "blue eyes + blond hair", and another that says "brown eyes + brown hair get mutated into two different RNA-strands, one saying "blue eyes + brown hair" and "brown eyes + blond hair". A summation of a thousand of those cross mutations cannot account for a creature with 12 chromosomes to evolve into a creature with 14 chromosomes. That would require a different kind of mutation to take place (for example the kind of mutation where 1 RNA strands gets cut into two halves and both halves are adapted as a chromosome and wound up by histones). It's a completely different class of mutations.

How do they not? The point is they are indifferent to which of both views are right. That means, they cannot be put forth as evidence for either. one is supported theother isnt.

You missed my point, my point is that fossils, geology, DNA, only support for example which animal lift where and when. It doesn't support how they got there and this "evidence" is as much compatible with your views as it is with mine.

and why do you disagree? religion.

1. At first, back when I was an atheist I believed in common descent, but as I learned more about it I started questioning it. That was before I converted; so no my motivation is not religion.
2. What my motivation is, is irrelevant here. Judge arguments by their logic, not by the motivation of the arguer.

actually i was referring to the fusion of our chromosomes. ill let you discredit yourself.

I know what you were referring to, my point is that you brought up chromosomes to defend your earlier statement that DNA is evidence for evolution. My counterargument is that there's a difference between DNA and chromosomes. And that the argument is thus not an argument from genetics, but rather an argument from morphology.

sigh.. you dont have any undestanding of hte significance do you?

It's importance is not what is being questioned here. What is being questioned here is whether or not this can be brought up as evidence. I showed how it flawed as evidence. That should also answer you question on how important it is.

falsifing part of the tree means part of the tree have been falsified. (and thus pruned). And usually a newer better model is then put it in its place. (i seem to get the impression that you think cause we update the model as we learn the entire thing is bunk.)

Then your impressions are wrong, what I am saying is merely this: The theory of common descent cannot be falsified. Perhaps the tree that is proposed by common descent can be falsified, but falsifying the tree doesn't falsify common descent itself ergo common descent is not falsifiable.

it is falsibable, it just so happens that there is currently nothing out there to falsify it. LIke i said bunnies in the cambrian layer would do it. HUmans with dinosaurs.

The falsification is unfair.
1. Said bunnies would only falsify the idea of in which era bunnies existed, it would not falsify common descent. I wouldn't be surprised if a new tree would be conjured that allows for precambrian bunnies in such a case.
2. A falsification of a part of the theory cannot count as falsification for the entire theory. My argument has been that common descent is not falsifiable. It hasn't been that the tree of common descent isn't falsifiable, there's a big difference there.

you mean that animal A is found to be older than anima G and G is never found in the same time period as A then we cant falsify it?

You can falsify the very specific idea that that one animal is older then then that specific other one. But this falsification does not fit the criteria to falsify the theory itself. To give an analogy:

1. I have a rock that makes all unicorns on earth invisible.
2. I observe that there aren't any unicorns around.
3. If there would any unicorns visible on earth, while my rock is still existing, my theory would be falsified.
4. Out of (3) follows that theory (1) is falsifiable.

The presence of visible unicorns would indeed falsify theory(1). However, this does not count as falsification. Just because something would falsify something, doesn't mean that the theory itself is falsifiable. The standard for "falsifiable theory" is a bit higher. why? Because the falsification could also be interpreted for a much simpler theory: "There exist no unicorns". If there is consensus on the non-existence of unicorns, the falsification is useless. In analogy, the presence of precambrian bunnies would falsify a much simpler theory: "there exist no precambrian bunnies" something there is consensus on between both proponents as opponents of common descent. The falsification is thus flawed and the theory doesn't deserve the title "falsifiable" based on it.

Im pretty sure if we found G before or with A then that would go to falsifying it.
Humans found in the precambrian era would do too.

Yeas and I'm pretty sure that the afterlife will falsify atheism, but that doesn't mean atheism should be considered falsifiable.

what structures are there? I know of any structures that have been deemed IC.

There are numerous ones.
On biochemical level: ribosomes, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, centrioles within centrosomes, flaggella's,...
On organ level: eyes, ears, noses, stomaches, kidneys ...
On system level: reproductive system, digestive system, blood circularly system, breathing system, ability to walk, ability to fly

well lets look at flaws in the design, if there are flaws then thats a certain lack of perfection. If perhaps you were to define what you mean by perfection we can clear up this confusion. ... Now perhaps you can show how perfection can beget imperfection.

Since the argument goes, if god is perfect he should have created us in a perfect state, then your definition of perfection is inappropriate here. Given the opening argument, perfection creation should mean: "A creation most fitting for to purpose of our creation"

To the extend even that based on these assumptions of you, you can arrogantly insult me for being ignorant?
I'm simply pointing out your understanding of evolution being different than the accepted understanding in the scientific community.

Obviously I am aware that I have different views then the mainstream scientific community. I'm simply trying to point out how the views of this mainstream scientific community are sometimes un-scientific. Either way, regardless of what you are trying to point out, it does not justify attacking me personal trough the process.

Ive shown with in reason that we are not perfect. (im sure you have noticed my missspellings and your own) that in itself should be enough. the fact that many of us have to wear some sort of corrective lenses to see properly. The fact that we die ect...

I think you'll grant that this argument fails under the new interpretation of perfect (perfect creation, as most fitting for the purpose of our creation) that I have brought in one of the previous argument?

I don't need to show you, I'm taking the defensive position here, and the benefit of the doubt is sufficient for me. You're the one that needs imperfection to be showned if you want your arguments to hold ground.
You do need to show your positive claim. The burden of proof is the one making the positive claim.
similarly if i were to claim i was god its not your burden to prove i am not god but mine to prove i am.

Ah, I think you have lost track of the origin of this issue.

You: common descent has evidence.
Me: no it doesn't, all the evidence does is who which creature lived when, it doesn't show how it origenated. These evidences don't rule out the probability of creation, or any other method for that matter, so they aren't really evidence.
You: but creation is impossible because our design is imperfect

It is thus your argument on the line, and your burden of proof.

sounds like an imperfection to me. why i bet a human that didnt need to eat, or need vitman c is certainly better than one that does. wouldnt a perfect creation not need to be reminded?

Again I think these are both countered by the "perfect for its purpose" argument.

Olol, oh our imperfect spines are made to perfectly worship right? our spines evolved from those originally ment to walk on all fours. (i should have been clearer my imperfect mistake.)

Whether or not the shape of our spine is a remnant of evolution is strictly speculation. Either way it doesn't render the spine as imperfect, unless of course you could prove us that we'd be better of with a straight spine? However in your evidence, you'd have to consider things as: would a straight spine not cause a higher number of spine injurys during lifting of objects? Wouldn't a straight spine wear out more since gravity pulls it together whereas a bend spine divides the force over angles? Wouldn't a straight spine cause more vanity in the world, and along with it, more arguing and jealousy and hate? See it's one thing to say: "I think this is imperfect because I don't like it", but it's a whole other thing to say: "this is not perfect because this alternative is better".

Seems to be a major flaw to me. And yes blind people are evidence that humans are notperfectly designed.

Blind people are evidence that people aren't perfect, I never claimed peopel are perfect, I claimed the human design is perfect for Gods plans.

for us humanswith limited resources yes. but a good enough is not a perfect design. Or are you saying god is lazy? Could you explain then why god didnt make one pefect design for wings rather than several almost evolved looking forms (insects, birds, bats, gliders ect...)

By your narrow definition of perfection, in the end only one creature would inhabit earth, since only one could (by your standards) be perfect. You really need to see the bigger system. Like the ecological systems of how one creature easily becomes bait to the other.

God wants to test us with a temporal life on earth, and give us a body for it. And your argument is that God screwed up by giving us a mortal body for this short period of time rather then giving us an immortal body for this period of time? Obviously death is a vital part of testing mankind on earth.
Obviously. (im not sure how to do therolly eye smily)

So I take it you're sticking to your argument? Ok then, prove to me that this alternative plan, where God would have created us immortal would have been better. Mind that your evidence has to take into consideration that God wanted to test us, so the transitions of those who's time on earth has ended may not be obvious to those remaining.

these are the results of free will, so now God screwed up by giving us free will.
no many of these are the result of brain disorders. and once again to hit on perfectoin. cant god make a being with free will that doesnt do bad? or is he not thatperfect?

You're asking for four-sided triangles. Not allowing us to do bad things defeats free will.

I'm not writing a paper to a teacher.

I never said you were, I merely pointed out that your analogy was flawed.

appendix is vestigial and as a matter of fact some people are born without it these days.

Some people are born with only 9 toes for example, but that doesn't mean the 10th is vestigial.

Human body hair has become vestigial. It has reduced in size and no longer serves thesame function it once did. ( we do have as i recall the same number of folicles as our ape cousins "roughly")

Yes, I admitted that hair is vestigial in the previous post already, but I also said it has become vestigial due to civilization. It has nothing to do with evolution from man to ape. See your logic is completely circular. First you defend that we evolved from apes by claiming that we have vestigial organs, and then you defend that hair is in fact vestigial based on the assumption that we evolved from apes, and thus the hairs have become different then how they were. My counter: the way that the first humans were created there was nothing vestigial about their hair. Hair has only become vestigial due to technological advancements.

As for ostriches; my argument was to discredit arguments in favor of evolution from apes to man.
why apes to man? personal reasons?

The reason why I picked that specific link was mentioned in the page you so quickly refuted, apearently without reading it first.

do you think ostriches can fly or are they reduced function? (still keeps them warm, mating, fighting ect.. but no flying)

Like I said, I only oppose the theory of common descent. That means I oppose that all animals evolved from the same ancestral source. I don't oppose that some animals evolved from some others. That means it doesn't really matter in here whether or not ostriches have vestigial organs.

sounds like a personal issue then that is in conflict with science and knowledge.

Actually no, because there's nothing scientific about the parts of evolution that I reject. SO to me it sounds like common sense.

and why is that? why should i give you benefit of the doubt that you understand evolution when you clearly dont? Now ihappily admit that i dont understand it perfectly either but im much closer than you are.

In reverse of your views, I myself suspect that I know more about evolution then you do. The difference is, I'll give you a chance to defend your views and will not try to discredit your arguments by attacking you personal.

Sure whatever you want. Those darn universities are shaking in their pillars..

Again your mockery shows little respect. It was never my intention to make universities shiver in their pillars.

 

[ZarathustraDK]

I admit I didn't give much thought to the example. I took the first thing that entered my haead and messed up there. But nevertheless the argument still stands. The argument being that missing links is not as much a matter of finding bones out of every era, but more a matter of finding intermediate topology in bones. Which is a perfectly valid refutation for ZarathustraDK's earlier comment, regardless of my bad example.

The whole idea of 'finding intermediate topology' is senseless from a scientific point of view looking at creationists employing it. All a creationist will see when scientists find an 'intermediary species' is not an answer that will make them go "oh ok, you're right", no, it's simply a dividing the cake creating two more needs for intermediary species between the newfound one and the two already known ones. There is no such thing as a fossil of an ape in the process of mutating into a human, only gradual mutations over millions of years. The same way that you can't find a fossil of a soccer-match where one team is winning, you can only find a soccer-match where the teams are playing, or a soccer-match where one team has already won.

Some people seem to think that the fossils we have uncovered somehow constitute a platonic ideal of what X should look like at the time, and that they, because they were uncovered first, constitute some kind goal which every fossil thereafter must work towards. It's not, it's simply an organism who had the misfortune of being covered in sediments at that point in time. They didn't walk around thinking "Ah, I must remember that I must evolve towards being an elephant in the next 5 million years". Nope, **** happened, the bugger tripped into a river and got famous half a dozen million years later, that's all.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The whole idea of 'finding intermediate topology' is senseless from a scientific point of view looking at creationists employing it. All a creationist will see when scientists find an 'intermediary species' is not an answer that will make them go "oh ok, you're right", no, it's simply a dividing the cake creating two more needs for intermediary species between the newfound one and the two already known ones.

Yeah well the thing is, rather then the gaps growing smaller, as you suggest, we actually see the opposite happening.

 

[ranma1/2]

rather than have each posts 5 miles long im going to open up some seperate threads for us to discuss.

check out the one on perfection.

 

[ranma1/2]

Yeah well the thing is, rather then the gaps growing smaller, as you suggest, we actually see the opposite happening.

um no we dont, we are becoming more aware of the puzzle and where the pieces fit.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi ranma

um no we dont, we are becoming more aware of the puzzle and where the pieces fit.

Well we already agreed on the fact that the tree suggested by common descent is constantly falsified by new findings and then altered accordingly. Well the things is, in most of those cases, the new finds actually suggest that there are even more intermediate species then first assumed. On the other hand almost none of these intermediate creatures have been found. So the conclusion would be that rather then the number of missing links growing smaller, they are indeed growing larger. And the picture that ZarathustraDK reply suggested, were the gaps are constantly "cut it in half" is not representative at all.

 

[ranma1/2]

Hi ranma


Well we already agreed on the fact that the tree suggested by common descent is constantly falsified by new findings and then altered accordingly. Well the things is, in most of those cases, the new finds actually suggest that there are even more intermediate species then first assumed. On the other hand almost none of these intermediate creatures have been found. So the conclusion would be that rather then the number of missing links growing smaller, they are indeed growing larger. And the picture that ZarathustraDK reply suggested, were the gaps are constantly "cut it in half" is not representative at all.

i strongly disgree, no scientists to my knowledge thinks "Hey we found the last one, or only 5 more to go." They know that there are concieveably as many intermediates as creatures born. As stated many times so far, we ahve a HUGE puzzle, we dont know the size of it. (how many peices) but as we find peices we get a better idea of the puzzle. We get closer to understand what the picture looks like.

on a side note if i understand your view correctly.
I find it intersting that you accept evoltuoi and common decent for everything but us humans.

Its like thinking the 208443893497 grain of sand in an hour glass had all of the others grains fall just for that one grain.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

i strongly disgree, no scientists to my knowledge thinks "Hey we found the last one, or only 5 more to go." They know that there are concieveably as many intermediates as creatures born. As stated many times so far, we ahve a HUGE puzzle, we dont know the size of it. (how many peices) but as we find peices we get a better idea of the puzzle. We get closer to understand what the picture looks like.

I don't think scientists think in terms of "5 to go" either. What I do think is that they form a general idea of how many significant mutations there should have been, and the more we discover the larger the number.

on a side note if i understand your view correctly.
I find it intersting that you accept evoltuoi and common decent for everything but us humans.

No, I reject common descent in it's totality. Ape to human isn't the only step I'm having troubles with. There's also one celled organism to multi celled ones, fish to reptile, reptile to bird, cold blooded to warm blooded, ...
I even doubt much smaller classes like common descent between feline and canine. In other words. I believe that many different creatures were created independently, and that out of those many creatures an even larger number of variations on those creatures evolved.

 

[MustafaMc]

No, I reject common descent in it's totality. Ape to human isn't the only step I'm having troubles with. There's also one celled organism to multi celled ones, fish to reptile, reptile to bird, cold blooded to warm blooded, ...

I am shocked! You mean that you don't believe that the cotton plant that I work with originated from the same "common ancestor" (that we assume to be unicellular and prokaryotic) that I evolved from completely by chance through random mutations and genetic drift as acted upon by natural selection?

My, my, my - have you got a lot to learn as this process is completely logical (so they say) to evolutionists. It seems to me that they have just as large of a "leap of faith" in the theory of evolution that we do in a Creator. I choose to believe that Allah created the different life forms and species - by what process and over what time period is irrelevant to me.