Biological evolution doesn't even propose to try and answer the ultimate "why?" questions about the appearance of design. It simply records observations of nature and helps to organize the facts into a cohesive paradigm.
For example, "Why" and "how" do birds fly? They fly, in part, to escape predators on the ground. They fly to reach different feeding areas as the seasons change. For all we know, they may also fly just for the fun of it. Ever notice the birds that dive in front of your car at times?
Biological evolution can explain the development of feathers, the ancestry of feathered dinosaurs from the Cretaceous era and the development of characteristics needed for flight. It cannot answer and never proposes to answer the question of, "Why do birds and their ground based ancestors even exist at all?"
I like the feather example. It is with faith we accept that DNA changes were made and created the very first feathers.
Quote:
If so, it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this ...
Ooops. New structures, new DNA and new proteins. Feathers are very complex structures under a microscope.
Adaption requires a lot of faith.
Quote:
According to an ABC News article1 reporting on the July 14th issue of Science magazine,2 the beaks of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands have “evolved” yet again. Peter and Rosemary Grant, who have done extensive research on the birds for many years, have found that the medium ground finch now has a smaller beak. They observed that this occurred in a very short timeframe.
And evolution takes more faith than does a Special creation.
Darwin prophesied we would find all the transitional fossils.
You and I have been here already... and you failed miserably. Remember? I gave you a list of around 200 "transitional fossils" and you refused to even address it. Now, again! Pick out just 17 fossils from this list (any 17) and demonstrate why they don't fit the bill as "transitional fossils."
That's less than 10% of just a single arbitrary list of "transitional fossils." Can you pick out, say 5? Can you pick out even a single one? coadie?
Darwin was correct in his "prophecy," if that's what you want to call it. Darwin was right on the money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
Here is a prophesy
Religions have prophets.
Scientific theories are always falsifiable. Darwin offered a way for us to evaluate his theory and test it. That's not "religion." That's good science.
AND, the fact that you have never been able to even offer a single coherent "proof" to support your opposition to Evolutionary Biology actually reinforces Darwin's theory in the minds of others.
Now go back and look at those transitional forms and respond.
I like the feather example. It is with faith we accept that DNA changes were made and created the very first feathers.
Ooops. New structures, new DNA and new proteins. Feathers are very complex structures under a microscope.
Adaption requires a lot of faith.
short time frame? 30 minutes?
The time frame involved would have been around 171 years, the time since Darwin's voyage and observations in the Galapagos Islands. That would represent at least 150 generations of finches reaching maturity and breeding young of their own.
The quote about "scales" developing into feathers is a dated "guess" that the person you quoted was honest enough to admit that they were postulating and not surmising an observation.
If you have access to a school's subscription, check out this article:
The development of feathers was NOT due to scales of skin on the surface; rather it it was due to developments in the expression of genes in the stem cells beneath the skin.
How about this? Every time you quote a source like "ABC News" as being authoritative on matters of evolution I will quote Benny Hinn as being a representative example of your religious theology?
That's less than 10% of just a single arbitrary list of "transitional fossils." Can you pick out, say 5? Can you pick out even a single one? coadie?
Darwin was correct in his "prophecy," if that's what you want to call it. Darwin was right on the money!
Scientific theories are always falsifiable. Darwin offered a way for us to evaluate his theory and test it. That's not "religion." That's good science.
AND, the fact that you have never been able to even offer a single coherent "proof" to support your opposition to Evolutionary Biology actually reinforces Darwin's theory in the minds of others.
Now go back and look at those transitional forms and respond.
So it is your religion.
Your articles of faith rely on "200" transitional fossils doing what you by faith believe they did. I remember you saying man evolved from a common ancestor if you accept the orthodox religion. That means he wasn't around when the primordial soup was brewed.
Your "reasoning" fails you. I have also not proven Buddha was not capable of miracles and by the same pathetic logic am I forced to accept that he did?
The time frame involved would have been around 171 years, the time since Darwin's voyage and observations in the Galapagos Islands. That would represent at least 150 generations of finches reaching maturity and breeding young of their own.
The quote about "scales" developing into feathers is a dated "guess" that the person you quoted was honest enough to admit that they were postulating and not surmising an observation.
If you have access to a school's subscription, check out this article:
The development of feathers was NOT due to scales of skin on the surface; rather it it was due to developments in the expression of genes in the stem cells beneath the skin.
How about this? Every time you quote a source like "ABC News" as being authoritative on matters of evolution I will quote Benny Hinn as being a representative example of your religious theology?
Fair enough?
By faith you believe new structures and new information was added to the genome. Can you prophecy any more reptiles gaining feathers?
So it is your religion.
Your articles of faith rely on "200" transitional fossils doing what you by faith believe they did. I remember you saying man evolved from a common ancestor if you accept the orthodox religion. That means he wasn't around when the primordial soup was brewed.
Your "reasoning" fails you. I have also not proven Buddha was not capable of miracles and by the same pathetic logic am I forced to accept that he did?
Just because you say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
81% of buddhists believe in evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
By faith you believe new structures and new information was added to the genome. Can you prophecy any more reptiles gaining feathers?
Earlier today, I bragged about being "somewhat fluent in Coadie". Well, pride cometh before a fall.
I'm stumped!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
All evolutionists believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile, even if they can't agree on the kind. However, reptiles and birds are very different in many ways. Flying birds have streamlined bodies, with the weight centralized for balance in flight; hollow bones for lightness which are also part of their breathing system; powerful muscles for flight, with specially designed long tendons that run over pulley-like openings in the shoulder bones; and very sharp vision. And birds have two of the most brilliantly designed structures in ,nature - their feathers and special lungs.
There are no fossils that show similarity between birds and reptiles. In fact their cardio-pulmonary systems are extremely different. The bone structures and even the tails. Can't fly with a heavy reptile tail.
By faith we are told to believe they morphed into birdies.
So it is your religion.
Your articles of faith rely on "200" transitional fossils doing what you by faith believe they did. I remember you saying man evolved from a common ancestor if you accept the orthodox religion. That means he wasn't around when the primordial soup was brewed.
Your "reasoning" fails you. I have also not proven Buddha was not capable of miracles and by the same pathetic logic am I forced to accept that he did?
Just because you say so?
You asserted that there were NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. I gave you almost 200 to look at. You fail again, though at least this time you have responded and for that I thank you. I guess.
As far as what the representative organisms "were doing" - all I can say is that they lived and died. But notice:
There are no fossils of modern birds in the Cretaceous period, nor any of humans for that matter. Life was rich and diverse and we didn't even exist yet, nor did modern birds. Why?
Why do we have evidence of such a long period of time with no humans and no birds - but we do see a whole of rather small feathered dinosaurs and mammals like this:
... but we find no humans and no birds. Why? How does this evidence fit into your world view?
Why can't your version of creation account for the fact that there was rich and abundant life on this planet 65 million years ago? Life with no people. Or birds.
Linear Mode
