- Dec 13, 2019
- 1,748
- 450
A recent article highlights the conflict between evolutionists who think the theory needs to change and their opponents.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
[__ Science __ ] Evolution—Does It Need an “Urgent Overhaul”?
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Wow, the article in The Guardian, to which AIG links (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution), is wonderful. Nothing particularly "religious" or "creationist" about it, but it is very interesting and understandable.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,179
- 2,497
No wonder AIG is confused. They write this:
"For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place."
Even Darwin knew better than that. But no "evolutionist" thinks it started with "light sensitive cells, lenses, and irises." Indeed there are organisms sensitive to light and capable of reacting to it, with none of that.
In fact, we can see the development of complex eyes by the transtitional stages still existing in some phyla. For example, mollusks:
BTW, if anyone is puzzled how the first light-sensitive substances evolved, we could also talk about that. Anyone interested? Clearly, a gradual development is evident in this phylum. And it isn’t just eyes that creationists struggle with. The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge is an unsolvable mystery to them.
Transitional wings are abundant in living organisms and in the fossil record. And not just for vertebrates; we also see this in insects (for example). Details on request.
"For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place."
Even Darwin knew better than that. But no "evolutionist" thinks it started with "light sensitive cells, lenses, and irises." Indeed there are organisms sensitive to light and capable of reacting to it, with none of that.
In fact, we can see the development of complex eyes by the transtitional stages still existing in some phyla. For example, mollusks:
BTW, if anyone is puzzled how the first light-sensitive substances evolved, we could also talk about that. Anyone interested? Clearly, a gradual development is evident in this phylum. And it isn’t just eyes that creationists struggle with. The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge is an unsolvable mystery to them.
Transitional wings are abundant in living organisms and in the fossil record. And not just for vertebrates; we also see this in insects (for example). Details on request.