butterflyl1on:


The same science you said It's evolutionary theory is unreasonable and irrational? Yet this same science based evolution is seen as God by you? You are confusing bro.

science is wide not all laws in modern physics is yet to be proven. So many American scientist don't believe in the big bang theory. The fact that i don't believe the evolution part of science doesn't mean i am confused sir. Are you an agnostic?

butterflyl1on:


The same science you said It's evolutionary theory is unreasonable and irrational? Yet this same science based evolution is seen as God by you? You are confusing bro.

some muslims don't believe in holy jihad ( killing of non Muslims) does it mean that they are not muslims? Some Christians don't believe in hell fire (Jehovah witness) those it also means they are not Christians. Some scientist don't believe in the evolution theory does it also me they are not scientist? Think about it sir.

segunojo866:
science is wide not all laws in modern physics is yet to be proven. So many American scientist don't believe in the big bang theory. The fact that i don't believe the evolution part of science doesn't mean i am confused sir. Are you an agnostic?

You seem not to understand me. We are talking about evolution Vs creation. You believe in creationism / intelligent design as an atheist but not based on the religious account.

You also said the evolutionary model being paraded by science is irrational and absurd so how can same science based evolution be seen as God by you?

Mind you,we are not talking about ALL of science but focussed on the evolutionary angle.

butterflyl1on:


You seem not to understand me. We are talking about evolution Vs creation. You believe in creationism / intelligent design as an atheist but not based on the religious account.

You also said the evolutionary model being paraded by science is irrational and absurd so how can same science based evolution be seen as God by you?

Mind you,we are not talking about ALL of science but focussed on the evolutionary angle.

it will be so irrational if i accept the big bang theory because it has not be proven

butterflyl1on:


You seem not to understand me. We are talking about evolution Vs creation. You believe in creationism / intelligent design as an atheist but not based on the religious account.

You also said the evolutionary model being paraded by science is irrational and absurd so how can same science based evolution be seen as God by you?

Mind you,we are not talking about ALL of science but focussed on the evolutionary angle.

creation and evolution are so different. i don't believe in both creation and evolution. So what's the argument about?

segunojo866:
it will be so irrational if i accept the big bang theory because it has not be proven

We are not talking about the Big Bang Theory but evolutionary theory.

segunojo866:
creation and evolution are so different. i don't believe in both creation and evolution. So what's the argument about?

See why I said you are confusing. You said you believe in intelligent design. Isn't that creation?

butterflyl1on:


We are not talking about the Big Bang Theory but evolutionary theory.

I believe in a designer but not a supernatural designer instead a normal natural designer

butterflyl1on:


See why I said you are confusing. You said you believe in intelligent design. Isn't that creation?

put logic to reasoning.

segunojo866:
I believe in a designer but not a supernatural designer instead a normal natural designer

Please explain what you mean by a normal "natural" designer.

vaxx:
let's agree for the sake of argument that human share common ancestors with ape

if we agree with this statement, it will mean we are closely related with the apes and that include lesser ape Gibbons and great ape like chimpanzees and gorillas and likewise orangutans... it is reported that they they emerge and diversified during the Miocene epoch ... Miocene epoch was a time of warm global climate than those in the proceeding like Oligocene or the following Pliocene...and science also claim that is the time two major ecosystem appear which is the kip forest and grasslands..

where I need clarification...

who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?


is science claiming there is no mammals on planet earth before the arrivals of the ecosystem?



I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....

could it be that extra-terrestial aliens visited earth and strategically manipulated the genomes of these ancestors to be similar to theirs for a purpose?

DeSepiero:


could it be that extra-terrestial aliens visited earth and strategically manipulated the genomes of these ancestors to be similar to theirs for a purpose?

probably yes or no... Who knows... Let assume it is yes.... The next question will be who are this extra terrestrial ancestors which will also give birth to infinite regression explanation...

This is what I believe and that is why I hold the believe of God.... There must be a cause and that cause by defination is uncaused which is Whom I take as God...

vaxx:
probably yes or no... Who knows... Let assume it is yes.... The next question will be who are this extra terrestrial ancestors which will also give birth to infinite regression explanation...

This is what I believe and that is why I hold the believe of God.... There must be a cause and that cause by defination is uncaused which is Whom I take as God...

I've got no qualms with you calling an uncaused cause god, if at all there was one. The problem would be your description of it.

I was cosidering the possibility, however, that the origin of our species is distinct from an/the original cause of life.
This would consequently assume that there is intelligent life out there in outter space, more advanced than us. Afterall, the age of the universe is enough to have allowed evolution of several entities.

DeSepiero:


I've got no qualms with you calling an uncaused cause god, if at all there was one. The problem would be your description of it.

I was cosidering the possibility, however, that the origin of our species is distinct from an/the original cause of life.
This would consequently assume that there is intelligent life out there in outter space, more advanced than us. Afterall, the age of the universe is enough to have allowed evolution of several entities.

Are those entities part of our universe or part of other universes? Can the alleged age of our universe be used as a yardstick to measure the age of theirs even when we do not have access to their own universe/s?

If you assume an intelligent life form may be out there who orchestrated our existence then it would take us back to a designer who is higher and greater than us and can be called God.

One can describe the qualities of this God based on a simple observation of his creation and their nature. But since we cannot physically see this God we cannot describe him superficially.

What do you think about evolution and its many postulations which are mixed in with a lot of speculation?

DeSepiero:


I've got no qualms with you calling an uncaused cause god, if at all there was one. The problem would be your description of it.

I was cosidering the possibility, however, that the origin of our species is distinct from an/the original cause of life.
This would consequently assume that there is intelligent life out there in outter space, more advanced than us. Afterall, the age of the universe is enough to have allowed evolution of several entities.

well it is my opinion of explaining whom is God... There is no any better explanation to explain the best explanation.... Even in science and philosophy...you can't explain better than the best explanations because if you do so... It will render the purpose of science useless....


The topic is addressing the origin of our species not life's... Wherever the intelligence life may dwell even if there is one they must certainly have a source and the source will have source.... Just on the long chain...
And that is why i called the caused of the source uncaused... Becuse no any other better explanation again..

butterflyl1on:


Are those entities part of our universe or part of other universes? Can the alleged age of our universe be used as a yardstick to measure the age of theirs even when we do not have access to their own universe/s?

If you assume an intelligent life form may be out there who orchestrated our existence then it would take us back to a designer who is higher and greater than us and can be called God.

One can describe the qualities of this God based on a simple observation of his creation and their nature. But since we cannot physically see this God we cannot describe him superficially.

What do you think about evolution and its many postulations which are mixed in with a lot of speculation?

These ETs may have come from (another universe) very far, considering that our scientific community haven't been able to establish their presence. On the contrary, if there're in our universe, their presence may as well be a well preserved secret by our world powers.

How would you describe god by observation of his creations?

Apparently, the evolution theory remain the most comprehensive explanation for species diversity yet. Though some of its postulations seem to be prevaricative.

dalaman:
I've tried to study evolution for years but I just can not understand it. It is just full of speculation, wild guesses and assumptions for me to take it seriously.

Some part of it makes sense though but as a whole it's riddled with so many fallacies and nonsense.

Dalaman, I'm interested to know what about the theory of evolution is "riddled with so many fallacies and nonsense". I'm not a biologists, myself, but what I understand about the theory of evolution makes it compelling enough for me to accept. It may very well be that I have a shallow foundation on the subject.

AgentOfAllah:


Dalaman, I'm interested to know what about the theory of evolution is "riddled with so many fallacies and nonsense". I'm not a biologists, myself, but what I understand about the theory of evolution makes it compelling enough for me to accept. It may very well be that I have a shallow foundation on the subject.

Macro evolution for example. The OP and Butterflylion havr presented some of the problems I have with evolution here which to me are fallacies.

vaxx:
they are two basic method of truth verification... Science and logical reasoning... Religion rely heavily on logic rather than science....

You're wrong! Logic is a tool merely used to formulate conclusions about a set of predefined premises. If the premise is objectionable, then logic can never provide the truth. Science on the other hand, seeks to establish empirical premises upon which logic can rely to come to truthful conclusions. Logic can be applied to any premise. The question is, how reliable is that premise?

Therefore you can't also throw religious evidence of truth away...

You can if the premises prove questionable.

The method of truth verification in religion is not compatible with science but it does not violate logic and reasoning... Must of the claims of religion can be subjected to critical thinking and hence make sense logically...

This claim is objectively false! Religion is hopelessly dependent on blind faith, which is the direct antithesis of critical thinking.

If the religious folks can argue logically that there is God base on the complexity in the design ....I think it is reasonable and cannot be totally throw into the garbage even If it violate science... For example it is proven scientifically that whale sings but no one can explain what it sings about...which can be debated logically..........my friend once logically prove it to me that water took its colour from the sky..... No scientific evidence that support it.... But by mere observation it can be true...

But attributing complexity to god is not a logical argument, it is resignation. Water is transparent, hence does not take its colour from anything. It can however, sometimes scatter, reflect or transmit light from other things around which may give the apparition of colour. But make no mistake, water has no colour! Hence, whatever your friend's logic is, it is wrong.

With your last paragraph.... If I can understand you.... Sea water and salty water can both contain an electric fish even though they are different in nature.... You can explain better......

My last paragraph was just to demonstrate that common ancestry is not the same as common designer.

dalaman:


Macro evolution for example. The OP and Butterflylion havr presented some of the problems I have with evolution here which to me are fallacies.

So when you say macro evolution, is it that you find it implausible that two seemingly distinct species may have shared common ancestors?

AgentOfAllah:

So when you say macro evolution, is it that you find it implausible that two seemingly distinct species may have shared common ancestors?

The clear and full position of the common ancestor hasn't even been established as the OP has stated.

What exactly is the nature of the common ancestor we as humans share with chimps for example?

vaxx:


God design the universe that is the best explanation.... nothing more......

of course. since we're yet to fully understand it, why don't we fill up the gaps with god

dalaman:



The clear and full position of the common ancestor hasn't even been established as the OP has stated.

But, as I showed in my first response, the absence of this information is of no more consequence to the claim of the theory than the absence of clear and full information about your great-great-great-great grandfather is, regarding the truth of his existence. Are we then to deny the relationship you have with your 5th cousin because we do not know the full nature of your common ancestor? What if DNA tests establish this link? Should we still deny it?

What exactly is the nature of the common ancestor we as humans share with chimps for example?

Again, is it possible to establish, exactly, the nature of traits you and your 5th cousin share with your common ancestor? The exact nature can never be known, but incomplete sketches can be made based on the many traits we still have in common with chimps. There's only one scientific theory that can explain many of the fantastical coincidences we find in the diverse expression of species. Do you know about vestigial organs? How do you explain the fact that some species, like the blind mole with eye spots, have useless body parts?

butterflyl1on:
Hello Vaxx sorry but my main moniker got erroneously banned almost after I said I will update shortly and the ban is to last till the 10th of October. However I have written to the mods with an explanation so hopefully my ban will be lifted. Permit me to address your OP with my alternate handle which is as good as same with butterflylion.

In most arguments for evolution, the proponent assumes that common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and humans, point to a common ancestor in the distant past. Darwin mocked the idea (proposed by Richard Owen) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.

But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans. The human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.


Development of human and frog digits


Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.

Image 1. human digits to the left and frog digits to the right
Image 2. embryonic development

Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes).

Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide.

The evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common ancestor. But this is false. There are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.

There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die so once a code is settled on, we’re stuck with it. Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors. But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64–69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.

The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or bird.

Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms. For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved

The only thing that fits the gaps in evolution and common ancestry is a creationist / intelligent design position.

Next time you want to copy and paste someone's intellectual property, don't forget to include the source, as failure to do so is akin to plagiarism which is a serious offence


But just incase it skipped your mind, here's the source; http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

You're welcome

OliviaPope:
Next time you want to copy and paste someone's intellectual property, don't forget to include the source as failure to do so is akin to plagiarism which is a serious offence


But just incase it skipped your mind, here's the source; http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

You're welcome

Ah, institute of creation research and creation blogs, why am I not surprised?

OliviaPope:
Next time you want to copy and paste someone's intellectual property, don't forget to include the source, as failure to do so is akin to plagiarism which is a serious offence


But just incase it skipped your mind, here's the source; http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

You're welcome

LoL

Hunters hunted.
Yet he accuses others of same crime (plagiarism).

AgentOfAllah:

But, as I showed in my first response, the absence of this information is of no more consequence to the claim of the theory than the absence of clear and full information about your great-great-great-great grandfather is, regarding the truth of his existence. Are we then to deny the relationship you have with your 5th cousin because we do not know the full nature of your common ancestor? What if DNA tests establish this link? Should we still deny it?


Again, is it possible to establish, exactly, the nature of traits you and your 5th cousin share with your common ancestor? The exact nature can never be known, but incomplete sketches can be made based on the many traits we still have in common with chimps. There's only one scientific theory that can explain many of the fantastical coincidences we find in the diverse expression of species. Do you know about vestigial organs? How do you explain the fact that some species, like the blind mole with eye spots, have useless body parts?

There is no such thing as vestigial organs as this is not admissible in science. What was said to be "useless" today can be discovered to have a function tomorrow. We once had about 180 vestigial organ list and today we have about 4 or 5 and the list keeps shrinking as their functions are finally discovered.

This vestigial organ assumption uses as an assumption the claim that an organ has no function. There is no way in which this negative assertion can be arrived at in a scientific manner. What I mean is that one can't prove that something does not exist for example, such a case like this, a certain function, since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it based on science.

As it is today, the vestigial organ claim has as an assumption, either a statement of ignorance such as, I couldn’t identify the function, or a scientifically invalid claim such as, it does not have a function. This kind of claim isnt scientifically valid, and isn't admissible in observational or experimental science.

OliviaPope:
Next time you want to copy and paste someone's intellectual property, don't forget to include the source, as failure to do so is akin to plagiarism which is a serious offence


But just incase it skipped your mind, here's the source; http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

You're welcome

The message speaks for itself and speaks my mind as well in understandable detail. Being a creationist may seem offensive to some who think science is everything and knows everything when in fact science is still a baby.

butterflyl1on:


There is no such thing as vestigial organs as this is not admissible in science. What was said to be "useless" today can be discovered to have a function tomorrow. We once had about 180 vestigial organ list and today we have about 4 or 5 and the list keeps shrinking as their functions are finally discovered.

This vestigial organ assumption uses as an assumption the claim that an organ has no function. There is no way in which this negative assertion can be arrived at in a scientific manner. What I mean is that one can't prove that something does not exist (in a case like this, a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it based on science.

So as it stands, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn’t identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

Vestigial organs is a well known entity in evolutionary biology. A common Google search will give you a list from pinnae/ear muscles to wisdom teeth.

CatfishBilly:

Vestigial organs is a well known entity in evolutionary biology. A common Google search will give you a list from pinnae/ear muscles to wisdom teeth.

Wisdom teeth are very useful, especially if other molars wear down or decay. (you can call it the back up tooth). Although we in todays culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is “too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potential”.

Regarding the ear muscles, you can re-read the comment you responded to.

butterflyl1on:


Wisdom teeth are very useful, especially if other molars wear down or decay. (you can call it the back up tooth). Although we in todays culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is “too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potential”.

Regarding the ear muscles, you can re-read the comment you responded to.

You said there's no such thing as vestigial organs, I'm just trying to correct that erroneous idea.

Wisdom teeth are not "back up", they are a remnant from our days off eating a different diet. They're a nuisance. Theyre so useless that we've evolved to the point of not developing wisdom teeth at all.

CatfishBilly:

You said there's no such thing as vestigial organs, I'm just trying to correct that erroneous idea.

Wisdom teeth are not "back up", they are a remnant from our days off eating a different diet. They're a nuisance. Theyre so useless that we've evolved to the point of not developing wisdom teeth at all.

You claim the wisdom teeth are a remnant from days of chewing a different diet and I say they are not and are seen as useless because we do not chew the right diet meant for it. I guess we both agree that the problem is poor or wrong diet.

Claiming that we have vestigial organs simply because their functions have not been discovered in this day is extremely unscientific and a hypothesis at best.

We had a list of 180 vestigial organs prior to modern times and today what happened to the 180?