Originally posted by jaywillSo you are finally getting the point that all fossils and animals living today are actually transitional forms.
I used the term "proto wings" didn't I?
Now because the environment may change in ways that we cannot imagine evolution if true make take some surprising turns in the distant future. Suppose what we see today as bird wings are really a transitional stage into something else?
Perhaps they are proto solar panels of the distant future. It could be that ...[text shortened]... think? If evolution is true those wings may be in transition to become feathery solar panels?
Bird already use their wings for many things including flying, swimming and yes - as solar panels:
http://beilby.com/image.a.nation/index.php?showimage=695
The other key thing to remember is that the majority of branches are dead ends. If a bird 2 million years from now has highly sophisticated solar panel wings, its ancestor will be only one of the currently existing species of bird. It is possible that all the other species will have died out and the specific one that it evolved from does not leave a fossil and some creationist will say there are 'gaps' and 'no transitional links'.
Originally posted by jaywillYou write as if evolution has a goal; as if features that evolve are predetermined. This might be true if there were a designer, but in the theory of evolution there is no goal.
I used the term "proto wings" didn't I?
Now because the environment may change in ways that we cannot imagine evolution if true make take some surprising turns in the distant future. Suppose what we see today as bird wings are really a transitional stage into something else?
Perhaps they are proto solar panels of the distant future. It could be that ...[text shortened]... think? If evolution is true those wings may be in transition to become feathery solar panels?
There's no creature evolving towards having wings.
We can only look back afterwards and say, hey yes, I can see how wings have gradually occurred. But at every step towards wings these features which became wings were doing others things and were useful to the species that had them for other things.
By the way, on the walking fish thing, in the Australian Alps - the mountains in the North Eastern part of Victoria where I live - there's a small native fish species, the Mountain Galaxias, which can cling to bare rocks and climb up these rocks, hopping into higher and higher rock pools. It does this entirely with its fins.
Originally posted by RBHILLThis may seem like ridicule but it is not intended as such. Your quotation might as easily say:
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Zeus' command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
Do you see that I mean in doing this?
Faith can justify the existence of any God, and no argument can be made against faith.
Originally posted by flipperleeActually, you;ll find it to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not God or Zeus, that created the universe. First, a midget a tree and a mountain.
This may seem like ridicule but it is not intended as such. Your quotation might as easily say:
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Zeus' command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
Do you see that I mean in doing this?
Faith can justify the existence of any God, and no argument can be made against faith.
Originally posted by amannionDo you think we have directly observed speciation yet? Can the most recent posts be considered a different species from the earliest ones?
Eight and a half months and I'm beginning to think we might yet hit 3000 posts and 1 year!
And the posts have sort of ... evolved!😉
Originally posted by amannionWell the theists arguments seem to change over time due to environmental pressure. However it also appears that the anti-evolutionists are a separate species living in a different area which keeps coming into this area and although they try to adapt they soon die off and we have to wait for another anti-evolutionists who often comes along with the same old tired argument.
Quite possibly.
What adaptations do they show do you think?
And what about the transitional forms? Where have they gone?
However if we view it as a host parasite situation then I would say that the evolutionists have adapted their arguments over time in order to more quickly provide a coherent rebuttal to any anti-evolutionist claim.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm now waiting for the bit where some theist jumps in and says that their god is intelligently designing the evolutionists arguments!
Well the theists arguments seem to change over time due to environmental pressure. However it also appears that the anti-evolutionists are a separate species living in a different area which keeps coming into this area and although they try to adapt they soon die off and we have to wait for another anti-evolutionists who often comes along with the same ol ...[text shortened]... s over time in order to more quickly provide a coherent rebuttal to any anti-evolutionist claim.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThere are two basic arguments I have seen presented by theists to explain the existence of evil and suffering.
I'd still like to know why God "created" cells in otherwise perfectly healthy living organisms that become cancerous & cause a slow & painful death.
What genetic purpose has God served by doing that or is His design schematic a little bit tipsy?
1. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
2. Free will necessitates the availability of a 'wrong' choice. Hence the devil etc.
As you can see both arguments result in the apparent poor design (cancer) actually being a result of intentional hardship (option 1) or the devil (option 2)
Keep in mind that even theists who subscribe to evolutionary theory will present these same arguments.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchConsider "The Fall".
I'd still like to know why God "created" cells in otherwise perfectly healthy living organisms that become cancerous & cause a slow & painful death.
What genetic purpose has God served by doing that or is His design schematic a little bit tipsy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man
Originally posted by HalitoseA clever piece of 'pass the buck' if ever I saw one.
Consider "The Fall".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man
Most people read it and nod their head and say Ahh.. that explains it!
But if you actually think about it, it would take a good deal of theological study and the answering of a good deal more questions before the story of Adam and Eve actually explains anything. I personally have never been able to fathom it.
But I guess this is the wrong thread for that....