How likely is it for chemical processes to build the molecules used by life and then change them into all the different forms we see? Do you think that enough time, 4 billion years perhaps, makes it probable, even inevitable? Is such a possibility based on an examination of the probabilities involved or is it just a feeling? Wouldn’t someone who wanted to prove that natural origins were probable within a 4 billion-year time span want to demonstrate it by
While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science. No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could
How would you identify a whale as a whale? Evolutionists think that a small land dwelling creature called pakicetus was a whale. The question is, what is it about the pakicetus that makes them call it a whale? If you saw a pakicetus in a line up with a blue whale, a humpback whale and a dolphin you’d laugh at how simple it was to dismiss it from the group. But Evolutionists insist that it’s a whale. So exactly what
To illustrate irreducible complexity can be accomplished by evolution rather than being evidence for intelligent design Talk Origins attempts to show that adding parts to a structure can create irreducible complexity; therefore evolution is responsible for all irreducibly complex structures and systems in biology. They believe this evidence makes the irreducible complexity argument silly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html But does it seem silly to them because they miss the point or don’t understand it? Think about what is said here: “This is why
Natural Selection + Homology – Designer = Macro Evolution (Exclude mutation from this formula) Generally macro evolutionary stories have the following elements. Natural selection is used to represent the full process of evolution, homology helps create the evolutionary sequence, and then the idea that a designer wouldn’t create the feature being examined is used to give credence to natural selection and homology. Meanwhile, mutation is usually left out of the story because it falsifies, contradicts or complicates the storyline. HOMOLOGY
In evolutionary stories you are often directed to a particular speculation that seems to be supported by science and seems to confirm the accumulation of many unseen evolutionary changes. The focus is drawn to something that looks as if it could have evolved. But you need to think about what it is they are not looking at and what they bypass and what they assume in order to make the story sound plausible. In most cases it is not that
“In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term.” Charles Darwin Natural selection is the star of the evolutionary process. How often is natural selection given exclusive credit for a presumed evolutionary advance in biotechnology? Meanwhile, mutation, its silent partner with the bad reputation, the one that did all the design work, misses another opportunity for stardom. Even Darwin was aware that natural selection wasn’t capable of causing anything without variation. Consider the following
The argument from bad design, unnecessary design or unlikely design, i.e. “a designer wouldn’t do it that way” is very often used to prop up natural selection or homology arguments because they are scientifically weak. It is mostly used as a straw man argument against design. THE ARGUMENT FROM BAD DESIGN It really adds nothing to the understanding of how the feature in question would occur naturally. It’s heavily bogged down with subjectivity, who’s standard of perfection are we supposed
“This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.” W.R. Thompson “…inquiring minds, even when misled, could not help making some discoveries.” Isaac