Evolutions unsolved questions!

[Springer]

quote="GAG CAT UUG"

So you're saying that throughout 4.6 billion years, a so-called creator every-now-and-then creates a new species???

Unwarranted assumption of evolutionary thinking. There is no proof that the earth is more than six thousand years old.

This creator must be extremely busy creating new species of organisms from bacteria to plants to animals....OH MY! How does it have time to answer prayers?

Evolutionists have the habit of trivializing religion. By so doing, they only demonstrate their inherant bias.

[Springer]

No because I already addressed them, and believe it or not, I do have a life(WOW!).
Lobster clotting is one of those irreducible complexity cases brought up by Behe in his Dawin's Black Box book and this article shows the flaws of determining something as irreducibly complex simply because the person(Behe) can't figure out a way for it to happen, not that there isn't a way for it to happen.

Behe is not the only one who can't imagine a pathway... no one can.
If you can't even conceive of a way, what makes you so certain that an evolutionary pathway exists?

[Linn]

evolutionists,
instead of getting so emotional
why dont you approach this in a scientific way.
In stead of name calling as its apparant thats all thats going on, why dont you really examine this.
There are some legitimate arguments presented here. How are you ever going to develop critical thinking?
I think its you behaving fanatical. Do you go by the scientific model?

[mith]

Behe is not the only one who can't imagine a pathway... no one can.
If you can't even conceive of a way, what makes you so certain that an evolutionary pathway exists?

Read the darn article!! someoen did conceive of a way for it to exist.
As for your ridiculous young earth theory, I won't even bother with that.

@Linn
You need to read up on punctuated equilibrium

[alextemplet]

Linn, you are being very ugly to us, so now I'm pulling all the stops out. Moderators, I understand if you'll delete this, but if it is, I request that Linn's posts that I quote from are also deleted.

edited by mithril: Eh, posts deleted, lets not get into petty fighting here...

Alright, you want a legit debate, I'll bite. I'll have a friendly debate with you from now until one of our minds change, but only if we stop insulting each other. Until then I would like an apology for the above insults; until then I will not discuss this with you, Linn. And just to be fair, if I have insulted you, then point it out to me and I'll apologize. I admit I'm not perfect, and I get carried away sometimes, so if I said something to offend you then I'll gladly apologize. I'm willing to bury the hatchet if that'll lead to an intelligent, friendly discussion. Does that sound reasonable?

PS - Springer, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.[/i]

[Linn]

I am sorry if I offended any one that was not my intention, I did not come on this to fight. I think that perhaps more open minds may help. some people seem so hatefull about ID
yes what you said does sound reasonable to me

Linn:

I repeat myself that gravity and electricity are fact. The evidence is there.
Evolution is a theory. There is NO evidence.
You are refering to the explanation for the phenomena of gravity and electricity.

Okay, Linn, have it your way. By that definition, gravity, electricity, and evolution are all fact, because the evidence is there. Their mechanisms are all theories, but just because they're theories doesn't make them false. They're true.

answer to 1) why is it a flaw?
How would you design it?

In an nutshell, the eye's optic nerve loops in front of the retina before heading to the brain, causing a large blindspot that is only overcome by constant, microscope vibrations of the eye itself. That's the human eye. By contrast, squid, for example, have an eye in which the optic nerve is placed directly behind the retina, and does not obstruct it. As a result, they see much better than we do.

2) I would like to see proof of any transitionary stages. I was not aware that there was? elaborate?

I've already mentioned this in my debate with Springer. Again:
Astralopithecus: links apes and humans
Ambulocetus: links mesonychids and whales
Archaeopteryx: links dinosaurs and birds
Eohippus: links small mammals and horses
Ichthyostega: links fish and amphibians

Need I go on?

Also, Linn, are you trying to take over Springer's job?

Ok I had to go back and read from page 1
thie quote above is when I started to get insulted.
And you are really mean to springer too.
I may not be in the same field as all of you but that does not mean that I cant understand things.
I have already learned a lot from you.
I try to keep an open mind.
There is so much we do not yet know.
I never brought out the hatchet to begin with.
I keep asking for the answer to the fossil record and you dont answer it. Yet I am the accused of not comming up with proof.
Lets be peacable and agree to disagree. Find answers together.
K?

[Linn]

Oh and some more 2 cents lol
Maybe I have been a bit touchy
I am not well. Thats why my acedemic life is on hold. But I am still busy with other things.

[alextemplet]

Linn, if I have insulted you, then I apologise.

Springer, I also apologise if I've insulted you.

I admit I can get a bit touchy. It's wrong of me and I'm sorry. I hope we can continue peacefully, so let's all keep open minds about this.

I keep asking for the answer to the fossil record and you dont answer it. Yet I am the accused of not comming up with proof.

Alright, Linn, I'll take your question seriously. I already mentioned a few transitional species, here's what I wrote to save you the trouble of looking for it:

Astralopithecus: links apes and humans
Ambulocetus: links mesonychids and whales
Archaeopteryx: links dinosaurs and birds
Eohippus: links small mammals and horses
Ichthyostega: links fish and amphibian

I believe you had asked for missing links and these are a few that I provided. Perhaps I misunderstood your question to begin with, so please tell me, exactly what are you looking for with regards to fossils?

I am not well. Thats why my acedemic life is on hold. But I am still busy with other things.

Boy can I relate to that! My academic life is also on hold because my family stabbed me in the back and I have to work full time to food on my table and a roof over my head. But I'm doing well and hopefully I'll be able to start school again soon.

Well, that's enough for now. If you have any more questions, please ask, and I'll do my best to answer.

[Linn]

Well
to all I have "chatted" with here,
going to take a break. Not feeling too well.
I am sure you will miss me! lol

yes I have a question:
does any one know besides fruit flies what other insects they have the genome map of? how about caterpillars? (hope I said that right in your terminology) I dont want to make a seperate post on that. I thought you might know. I only know about a few.
Oh and in case you havent heard, there is going to be a good show on the science channel about the bird-dragon. The MISSING LINK lol
channel 227 or wahtever it is where you are. USA

later,
Linn

[Springer]

quote="alextemplet"

In an nutshell, the eye's optic nerve loops in front of the retina before heading to the brain, causing a large blindspot that is only overcome by constant, microscope vibrations of the eye itself. That's the human eye. By contrast, squid, for example, have an eye in which the optic nerve is placed directly behind the retina, and does not obstruct it. As a result, they see much better than we do.

I presume you're repeating Dawkin's argument regarding the "imperfectly designed human eye. First of all, perceived "imperfections of nature" is a philosophic argument, not a scientific one. It presumes how a creator would design organs. This is especially dangerous with complex structures such as the eye... things that we really don't know much about relative to what's there.
We do know that there are important physiologic reasons for the wiring of the human eye. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for retinal pigmented epithelial cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light. ...
In other words, if Dawkins had designed the eye, we wouldn't be able to see.

[alextemplet]

No, Springer, I'm trying to make a point about creationism. Creationists use the eye as an argument against evolution. They claim, and I'm quoting exact words people have said to me, "How can evolution produce something as perfect as the human eye?" The truth is it just ain't even close to being perfect, and that's my point. If Dawkins, or myself, had designed the eye, I think it'd be very similar to a squid eye, and we'd be able to see much, much better.

Also, the structure of the vertebrate eye can be very easily understood considering what it evolved from, the eye of lancelets. The structure works well for them, but not so well in a vertebrate skull. I don't remember all the details so I'll post again after I do my homework. I've got a lot of catching up to do.

PS - I don't suppose this matters but I'll say it anyway. I don't like Dawkins at all, and until now I was unaware that he had ever said that. I'll admit he's a competent scientist, but I find him to be one of those belligerent types who's trying to destroy religion. I think he once called believers foolish. As a foolish believer, I don't like him.

[AstusAleator]

...is a philosophic argument, not a scientific one. It presumes how a creator would design organs. This is especially dangerous with complex structures such as the eye... things that we really don't know much about relative to what's there.

I couldn't agree more Springer. In fact, I think that's very similar to something I've been saying for a while now.