[_ Old Earth _] Natural Selection

[jwu]

yeah but i am no scientist and am not making any discovery's in the future, so all i have is "god did it" till i am proven wrong.

God could have made it evolve...these things aren't mutually exclusive. I see it more as an investigation as to how God did it.

[quote:8da5d]I've already shown you a species of animals that is alive today whose eyes do not sit in eye sockets

So ? so how does say that they evolved ?
[/quote:8da5d]Why would God create them with eyesockets which they don't actually use? This has "evolution!" written all over it.

its still a type of socket, since no human has seen a dino in recent times we have no clue where there eyes sat in there head. whether they bugled out or sank in, its still irrealivant.

It however is not specifically shaped around the eyes...unless you propose they had triangular eyes ;)
But what else are you looking for then? The nerves somehow have to get to the brain, so some hole to let them through is inevitable.

 

[John]

God could have made it evolve...these things aren't mutually exclusive. I see it more as an investigation as to how God did it.

God does not need to use "natural" methods, get my entry "god is on the outside" on devaintart
http://johnmuise.deviantart.com/art/God ... e-82668043

Why would God create them with eyesockets which they don't actually use? This has "evolution!" written all over it.

how do you know they don't use them ?

It however is not specifically shaped around the eyes...unless you propose they had triangular eyes ;)
But what else are you looking for then? The nerves somehow have to get to the brain, so some hole to let them through is inevitable.

I want to see a skull of any mammal that shows the transition of no sockets to fully developed sockets without gaps.

the skull before sockets

:

 

[jwu]

God does not need to use "natural" methods, get my entry "god is on the outside" on devaintart
http://johnmuise.deviantart.com/art/God ... e-82668043

The evidence indicates that He did use them though. And aren't creationists ready to accept evo...umm...adaptation in order to account for the diversity of life after the supposed flood? That would constitute God using natural methods, wouldn't it?

[quote:43577]
Why would God create them with eyesockets which they don't actually use? This has "evolution!" written all over it.

how do you know they don't use them ?
[/quote:43577]There is an empty eye socket on the downside of the fish. What else is it good for?

[quote:43577]It however is not specifically shaped around the eyes...unless you propose they had triangular eyes ;)
But what else are you looking for then? The nerves somehow have to get to the brain, so some hole to let them through is inevitable.

I want to see a skull of any mammal that shows the transition of no sockets to fully developed sockets without gaps.[/quote:43577]Mammals always had eyes though, so the ToE does not predict that such fossils should exist. Eyes also predate skeletons, and since they require a connection to the brain, you won't find a fossil with a fully closed skull that doesn't at least have a hole for some nerves.

 

[John]

The evidence indicates that He did use them though. And aren't creationists ready to accept evo...umm...adaptation in order to account for the diversity of life after the supposed flood? That would constitute God using natural methods, wouldn't it?

yes but that is as far as it goes. adaptation (Micro) not evolution (Macro)

There is an empty eye socket on the downside of the fish. What else is it good for?

i wonder if this is just another example like the whale pelvis, its thought to have no know use, but any whale biologist will know that they need these bones to reproduce.
i will dig into the fish even if i need to call some ware long distance in the USA to a university or something to find out about that.

Mammals always had eyes though, so the ToE does not predict that such fossils should exist. Eyes also predate skeletons, and since they require a connection to the brain, you won't find a fossil with a fully closed skull that doesn't at least have a hole for some nerves.

You know what jwu i agree mammals always had eyes and eye sockets :wink:

i am not gonna try to refute the complexity of the eye because it won't have an answer, but this new topic about how eye sockets came about obviously does not have an answer from the evolution side. to complex :P

 

[John]

Okay before i end up spending money on long distance calls and doing more work then i have too, what makes you think that the eye sockets in flatfishes don't serve purpose ?
becuase i just spend the last hour scouring Google for answers but to no avail.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

yes but that is as far as it goes. adaptation (Micro) not evolution (Macro)

It's error to say you believe in micro but not macro evolution, unless you deny the age of the earth. That would be a whole new thread.

It really is like saying you believe in microeconomics but not macroeconomics.

Macroevo is what happens over a long time period.

 

[John]

yes but that is as far as it goes. adaptation (Micro) not evolution (Macro)

It's error to say you believe in micro but not macro evolution, unless you deny the age of the earth. That would be a whole new thread.

It really is like saying you believe in microeconomics but not macroeconomics.

Macroevo is what happens over a long time period.

because as stated probably a hundred times over again, we can see (micro) adaptation but no evidence exist for macro.

i don't see how you are drawing your conclusions from this. :roll:

 

[Dunzo]

yes but that is as far as it goes. adaptation (Micro) not evolution (Macro)

It's error to say you believe in micro but not macro evolution, unless you deny the age of the earth. That would be a whole new thread.

It really is like saying you believe in microeconomics but not macroeconomics.

Macroevo is what happens over a long time period.

because as stated probably a hundred times over again, we can see (micro) adaptation but no evidence exist for macro.

i don't see how you are drawing your conclusions from this. :roll:

You've been shown evidence for macroevolution many, many times. To say there is "none" is silly. You've even acknowledged yourself that evidence exists.

 

[John]

missing links as evidence ? thats too weak, look at the posts i just made about a few of your idols of evolution

 

[jwu]

because as stated probably a hundred times over again, we can see (micro) adaptation but no evidence exist for macro.

What is your explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions then?

 

[John]

because as stated probably a hundred times over again, we can see (micro) adaptation but no evidence exist for macro.

What is your explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions then?

Ah, big words, explain please.

 

[freeway]

jwu said:

endogenous retroviral insertions

I say :smt015
if you are talking about an invasion of a virus to the host, that causes cancer or aids along that line of thinking then all the time. IF you are talking about an invasion to the host to change one species to another, or to add to the genetic makeup as to adding a third eye, never happened never will.

 

[jwu]

jwu said:

endogenous retroviral insertions

I say :smt015
if you are talking about an invasion of a virus to the host, that causes cancer or aids along that line of thinking then all the time.

Very most virus infections cause other things than aids or cancer...e.g. the common flu is caused by viruses.

However, sometimes a virus infection goes wrong, and instead of a cell turning into a virus factory, a piece of the viral DNA becomes part of the cell's DNA. This leaves traces which can be used to trace the ancestry of a species.
You can read more about the whole thing here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

[freeway]

true, it can adhere to the DNA, but it does not go as far as to the changing of the species. adaptation is a hole different ball game than evolving.

 

[jwu]

true, it can adhere to the DNA, but it does not go as far as to the changing of the species. adaptation is a hole different ball game than evolving.

No-one claims it changes the species. It however can attach "markers" to the DNA based on which ancestry can be traced, as these markers are inheritable. Hence if two people share the same such markers on their DNA, then they quite certainly got them by having a common ancestor who also had these markers. It would be extremely unlikely for two people to independently acquire the same such markers by coincidence.
Do you agree so far?

 

[John]

then they quite certainly got them by having a common ancestor who also had these markers.

No evidance, we could also assume we always had them since about 600 years ago :wink:

 

[jwu]

then they quite certainly got them by having a common ancestor who also had these markers.

No evidance, we could also assume we always had them since about 600 years ago :wink:

Actually no, we cannot assume that they were part of an original creation ex nihilo, because we can clearly identify them as the remains of failed viral infections. I know of one case in which the virus even could be reconstructed based on the extracted DNA.

Is there a reason why God would place faked residues of viral infections that never actually happened in our genome?

 

[John]

Deuteronomy 28:61

Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

?

 

[jwu]

Deuteronomy 28:61

Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

?

How is this verse supposed to imply that God created humans with faked residues of failed viral infections right from the start?

 

[John]

Deuteronomy 28:61

Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

?

How is this verse supposed to imply that God created humans with faked residues of failed viral infections right from the start?

i don't know, maybe as punishment god allows these virues to macro adapt