Creationist have an answer for all things. Unfortunately it’s the same for all questions. Magic.

ronsfi on December 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Interesting quote there, “ronsfi.”

Creationists believe that the creation came about by the will of God, a Creative, living power, a living being with the power to create, like human beings, only before human beings, and had the power to even create human beings.

Evidence in living organisms does support this concept of an Ingelligence and Design involved in living systems.

Darwinists-evolutionists believe that creation came about by nothing, no power, no creativity, no intelligence, no living, intelligent designer or guidance, yet led to intelligent organisms who create things, like mathematics, computers, medicine, cars, music, etc.

Of the two, Darwinism-evolutionism is more far fetched, and, because they believe that water and rocks can become living human beings, giraffe, dolphins, birds, etc., with no life or intelligence involved, it appears that Darwinism-evolutionism is the mindset which believes in magic.

When a frog becomes a prince in a fairy tale, we call it “Magic.”

When a frog becomes a prince after billions of years, we call it Darwinism-evolution.

William

I posted my evidence. Where is yours?

ronsfi on December 28, 2007 at 12:34 PM

I read your posts.

Where’s your “evidence?”

William

I’m mocking YOUR side with my “our lack of evidence” statement genius. (i.e. no one disputes microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution in the end your side always turns back to “well it can’t be observed because it takes millions of years”. This is the evolutionists magic wand that they wave and move on, as if it was scientific to do so… but in reality it’s done so that they can build more assumptions on the original, still unproven assumptions. My comment was a response to your “magic” accusation, when it is your side who regularly appeals to magic)

RightWinged on December 28, 2007 at 12:59 PM

RightWinged,

That was well said!

Notice,

Darwinists-evolutionists themselves contradict one another, disagree with one another about Evolution, mechanisms, transitional forms, and so on, hence it is not an exact science, or an established fact.

If Darwinism-evolutionism were an established fact, supported by irrefutable evidence, then, after Tiktalaak was “discovered” back in 2004, News media outlets and Darwinists-evolutionists and their supporters, would not have retroactively confessed that they really did not have enough “solid” evidence, so to speak, in support of gradualism, and gradual change – evolution – over time, and transitional forms in the fossil record, creating new kinds and species of organisms, novel organisms, never before seen, different from any already on the planet.

Nevertheless, knowing that they were blowing smoke all along, the media, and those who cling to Darwinism-evolutionism like a child with his security blanket, or a banker and his money, or and alcoholic with his booze, they did admit that they did not have the goods, but NOW they finally got it, the evidence, and those kwazee, wakawee Kwistyanz can now finally SHUT UP!!!!!

Yeah, it’s all about shutting up those stupid Christians who don’t know science, and who will bring us back into the dark ages, living in caves!

If you don’t swallow Darwinism-evolutionism, if you are not a true believer, if you are a heretic, then you MUST be a kwazee Kwistyan! You surely cannot be any other form of idiot. It did not help when I saw that most people I heard and read who swore their undying, unshakable belief and faith in Darwinism-evolutionism, turned out to be flat out undereducated and misinformed regarding many of the scientific facts. Those who do claim to be scientists often seem to be rather naive and undereducated, and have a strong personal bias. In fact, it appears that their egos require them to put themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are the GRAND ORACLE, and they need little people to talk down to.

No thanks. Some of us can think on our own and can see the fraud in this fantasy-ego boosting, quasi religion of Darwinism-evolutionism, which actually actively brings religion into the mix, rather than the other way around. They begin with the premise that there was not God, no Creator, no Purpose, no Intelligence, and no Designer involved in Creation, right from the start bringing God into the mix, and quickly trying to eliminate “God,” or a Creator, before they get started. They bring up God right away, and say “We will ignore “Creator,” “God” and all that stuff and just figure out how, without that consideration, all this could have taken place.”

These “geniuses” don’t even know their science history, in which a gazillion scientists who never believed in Darwinism-evolutionism, but DID believe in a Creator, and even in – heaven forbid, “GOD!” actually are instrumental in bringing about modern science, pioneered medical breakthroughs, helped crack the Genetic code, contributed to advances in electricity, nutrition, fighting diseases, and reaching into outer space, even helping to transport astronauts into the heavens! They claim that only Evolutionism contributed to modern science, whereas people who believe in God are backwards, hay seeds, straw chewing, hill billy dolts who don’t know nuttin’ and who still believe the earth is flat.

AS IF!

Nevertheless, please be careful with these Darwinists-evolutionists. They like to distort the position of any and all non believers, then attack the distortions that they, themselves, create.

Darwinists-evolutionists are also experts at the bait and switch.

They will tell you that they will prove to you that Evolution takes place before us, in plain sight, every day, then they will actually let “Intelligence” sneak in under the radar, and they don’t even know they are doing it, by citing examples of things, like controlled agricultural experiments, or dog breeding, or horse breeding, or controlled experiments in a lab, such as breeding bacteria, then trying out antibiotics on them, then breeding more, then so on and so on.

Here we see man’s hand and intelligent mind, and planning involvement in experiments and processes that are artificial, then we see the Darwinist-evolutionist claiming that it proves Evolution!

No, it does not prove evolution.

Their examples involved human intelligence, planning, and control of the process. It proves intelligent design!

Also, and this is one of the biggest frauds of Darwinism-evolutionism, is they choose to take something like reproduction, as in dog breeding, horse breeding, and even human reproduction, and say that we can see evolution at work in the process.

If you buy into their little scam, and say “Okay. I see! Yes, that IS evolution in progress,” then they’ve got you. They’ve baited you. Now they can pull the “switch.”

Then they can bring in the BIG CHEESE, the thing they REALLY want you to believe, and the thing that Evolution is really all about – not natural selection, and not offspring – that’s the misdirection. They want you to really swallow the claim that all of this “evolved” from a rock soup billions of years ago, with a single celled living organism being given life without God, without a Creator, without Intelligence, without Purpose, without Design, and that this single celled organism magically “evolved” into a larger microbe of some kind, (Which, being the first living organism, somehow, magically, had food to eat, by the way. Magic! See!) which eventually “evolved” into something else, then finally a fish, then crawled out of the water and this creature discovered that they like it on land, so, this land-sea fish-amphibian-land dweller (magic again, no mechanism, no explanation, no transitional forms, just believe it – take it on faith, or you are an idiot for not believing in Darwinism-evolutionism).

This “organism” now wants to live on land (Intelligence sneaks in again) and “nature” or the process of “evolution” knew which changes needed to be made and made them, over long periods of time. (How does “evolution” know what it wants to become if there is no Creator, no purpose, no intelligence, no design, no guidance? It is a contradiction they cannot weasel out of!)

Anyway, this fish-lizard-amphibian land dweller “evolved” or changed – as if by magic, into other things like turtles, shrew, macaques, Velaciraptor, crocodiles, hippopotamus, elephants, and so many other creatures.

This process kept going on and on until the Giraffe ended up with a long neck, the ancestors of apes and humans changed and split, till humans’ ancestors came down from trees and eventually human beings appeared, out of ape-like ancestors.

The eye, the heart, blood clotting processes, feet of geckos, and so many other creatures, with amazing construction, functions, and abilities, amazing design, are only the result of accidents which slowly “evolved” over billions of years.

This is the dogma of Darwinism-evolutionism.

They bait and switch by focusing on reproduction and passing on of genetic material, try to pass it off as “evolution” then pound their chest in pride as if they proved something! Then they turn and say “we evolved from a single celled organism which became all these other forms.”

If this is the game they want to play, and it IS the game they want to play, then they can, and will, call anything and everything they can fit “evolution,” when ultimately they really want you to think we all evolved from that silly single celled organism which magically appeared in the rock soup billions of years ago!

They’ve done that. They have shoehorned anything and everything they can into their fantasy land.

Steven Jay Gould is a good example. He realized that the evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record was lacking, so he admitted it and made up a new theory – Punctuated Equilibrium, in which, unlike Darwin’s belief that things developed slowly, in small increments, by accident, by mutation, etc., slowly over long periods of time, – gradualism, Gould, and others, assumed that, perhaps it wasn’t by gradual, slow changes over time – otherwise there should be millions and millions of slow transitional forms found, but there aren’t.

Instead Gould proposed that there are long periods of stagnation, so to speak, in which there is no change in a species, kind, family, kingdom, etc. Then, suddenly, there was a quick change, creating a new kind of creature, or a change, hence we don’t see any transitional forms!

Brilliant!

If you cannot find these transitional forms, them make up a new theory, as long as you have the bully pulpit of the Universities, publications, the media, and Hollywood locked up and in your pocket, just make it up as you go! Go ahead! You can get away with it!

This “stair step” system of “change” could replace the slow gradualism of Darwin’s model. It gives and excuse for not finding transitional forms, and it lets Darwin and Evolutionists off the hook. Only problem is, this is just conjecture, a “what if” or “imagine if …”

Can’t find the proof? Just say “it does not exist because it changed too quickly to leave any evidence!”

That’s kinda like stabbing someone with an ice cycle. The evidence melts away. Now you cannot find the murder weapon!

Okay, so evolution does not take place by slow, gradual, small changes through long periods of time, it takes place after long periods of stagnation and no change, then, pop! A stair step, a leap is taken, and the change occurs, and we now have that new species, new family, new kingdom. We just can’t back it up with evidence because the evidence isn’t there because it took place so quickly and did not leave any evidence. I know this because I have a lot of faith. I believe! Thus says the Darwiist-evolutionist.

RightWinged,

Have you paid attention to Darwinists-evolutionists’ “proof” or “examples” of transitional forms?

They don’t really have any!

It is laughable! It is pathetic!

I looked at what they are pushing off as transitional forms and find that they merely post a few items, maybe three, maybe four, maybe more, of different alleged creatures who don’t look alike, and ask the viewer to assume that this one animal could have somehow changed something, like its jaw line, to something shorter, and their fins a bit more crooked.

Then you have to look at the next creature and accept that, although it does not look like the first, and it does not live in the sea, but lives on the land, that this second creature COULD HAVE evolved from the first. Now, mind you, “we aren’t saying that this creature IS evolved from that other one. We are just saying, as an example, that this is how it “might have” happened, although we don’t know which one is associated with which.”

Then they have another creature and you are supposed to accept that somehow the second creature, which does not look like the first, sea faring creature who looks a lot like a whale, but is not supposed to be a whale, could have turned into the second creature, and now accept that this second creature somehow grows longer legs and a longer neck – we don’t know why or how, but just believe it, okay?”

Then you are supposed to believe that some creature which has a longer neck and longer legs, say a lama, or a horse, somehow “evolved” from this second creature.

Wow! All that “proof,” and all those solid “examples” that aren’t proof or examples, but the fantasy of someone who is trying to ask you to imagine that “it could have happened like this.”

Wow. You mean that, in reality, those animals did not really evolve one into the other, but you are just saying that an animal like number one could have changed to look like an animal that could walk like number two, then that could have changed into number three, and we are all now supposed to be sold on Evolution?

Our son has more intelligence, and more powerful reasoning that that, but then, again, although he is only seven years of age, he is extremely bright – possibly an exceptional genius. In fact our ten year old daughter and our four year old daughter are also quite bright and can figure this out as well!

Anyway, it turns out that they really don’t show any real “transitional forms,” and they only want you to think that it somehow happened, but they don’t have proof, but just believe we have proof, even though we don’t.

Did you get that?

So, bottom line, it is important to get these fantasy pimpin’ and often condescending and scientifically challenged “Darwinists-evolutionists” to strictly define, and put limited, clearly enclosed parameters on their definition of “evolution” is, because they sure do bait and switch a lot.

Does “Evolution” mean that we all “evolved” from a single celled organism which magically changed from that into a fish, into an amphibian, into a squirrel, monkeys, apes, etc., until it became a human being, or by “evolution” do they mean that if you cross a Quarter Horse with an Arabian you will get another horse, but the blood line will eventually be different from the pure bred Arabian, and the Quater horse?

In fact, that IS what they mean – evolution to them is both, but they mean the Big one, that is, the organism magically appears, develops into all life forms, all without intelligence, without purpose, without design, unguided, and all. The variation within the species is a red herring and also a bait and switch tactic to get everyone to buy into Evolutionism as the mechanism that changed molecules into mankind.

That’s all for now.

Take care.

William

You got nothing as usual RW. Nada. Zip. Just Bluff and Bluster. Just “Faith” and Superstition.

Even you admit it

I quote. “to excuse our lack of evidence”

RightWinged on December 28, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Now go ahead and call me a “douche bag” and “pathetic” like you always do. Because you no argument. Just an attitude.

ronsfi on December 28, 2007 at 12:41 PM

“douche bag”? “Pathetic”? Nope, but I’ll call you a liar for dishonestly quoting me out of context, because what I said was:

lol… riiiiiiiiiiight. It’s us who appeal to magic. It’s us who, when we don’t have an answer, wave the magic wand of “it took millions of years” to excuse our lack of evidence. Oh wait, that’s not us, that’s you guys!

RightWinged on December 28, 2007 at 12:24 PM

I’m mocking YOUR side with my “our lack of evidence” statement genius. (i.e. no one disputes microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution in the end your side always turns back to “well it can’t be observed because it takes millions of years”. This is the evolutionists magic wand that they wave and move on, as if it was scientific to do so… but in reality it’s done so that they can build more assumptions on the original, still unproven assumptions. My comment was a response to your “magic” accusation, when it is your side who regularly appeals to magic)

Even you admit it

I quote. “to excuse our lack of evidence”

RightWinged on December 28, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Now go ahead and call me a “douche bag” and “pathetic” like you always do. Because you no argument. Just an attitude.

Creationist have an answer for all things. Unfortunately it’s the same for all questions. Magic.

ronsfi on December 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM

lol… riiiiiiiiiiight. It’s us who appeal to magic. It’s us who, when we don’t have an answer, wave the magic wand of “it took millions of years” to excuse our lack of evidence. Oh wait, that’s not us, that’s you guys!

windbag-

Why do we have gill slits in the embryological stage?

…

Missing logic is a missing link, too.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM

Because we don’t!

Human beings NEVER have gills, or slits, or gill slits at any time in our lives, from the moment we are conceived, or cloned, or twinned, or however we came to be at that first moment onward.

We never pass through living as a fish inside the womb either.

The stage you refer to, the embryonic stage, based on in vivo, sexual reproduction, as in a man and a woman engaging in sexual intercourse and the sperm of the man finding the oocyte of the woman, the sperm penetrating the zona pellucida, and fertilizing the oocyte of the woman in the fallopian tube, results in a single celled human embryonic zygote, a new human embryo, a new, living, human being.

The embryonic stage, in sexual reproduction in-vivo, extends from fertilization till the end of the eight week, Post Fertilization (PF). Much of the basic development of the new human being is complete by the end of the embryonic stage, with the heart beat detectable as early as 18 days to 21 days, the brainwaves detectable by six weeks, and the body’s major organs present by the end of the eighth week, the end of the embryonic stage.

The embryonic stage if followed by what is referred to as the fetal stage, during which baby matures, her internal organs, formed during the embryonic stage, mature, and baby grows till she is able to exit the womb.

It is during the embryonic stage, during a brief period in the early weeks, at approximately four weeks post fertilization, that the embryo has pharyngeal arches, and pharyngeal clefts, which are not gills, nor are they slits, or even “gill slits,” and they have nothing to do with breathing in the womb.

These pharyngeal arches and clefts will form, or give rise to, the external auditory canal, the external ear, the larynx, the ear, the thymus, the tonsils, and other structures in the body.

It is important to note that this new human being has only human enzymes, and human proteins, as well as the proper number of diploid cells for the human being, with chromosomes numbering 46, with some exceptions, such as in cases of Downs syndrome, or Turners.

The human embryo never displays traits or anything else which is of anything BUT human.

The question you ask, why do we have gill slits during the embryological stage, is a false question, based on a false premise, and based on scientifically inaccurate information, perpetrated largely by a misinformed public, as well as a number of uninformed, misguided Darwinist-evolutionists who are not up to date (about 150 years too late – didn’t get the memo way back in the 1860s) on the scientific facts.

(Missing logic is a missing link, too.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM)

“profitsbread,”

I hope this helps clear up any confusion you might have had regarding gills, slits, or gill slits in human beings, including in human embryos, and that you realize that they do not exist.

Best to you.

William

Study of Archaeopteryx brain and inner ear confirm they are transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds

In Nature 430, 666 – 669, (2004), Alonso et al) study the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx. They find that the brain and ear lie midway between that of dinosaurs and birds. They report that : ‘birds with the same body mass as Archaeopteryx have from one third to five times bigger brains. However, the brain of Archaeopteryx is about three times the volume of those of non-avian reptiles of equivalent size.’

Also data is presented in graphic form that shows that Archaeopteryx semicircular canals have a form that is midway between dinosaurs and birds

A rather extensive list of known Transitional Forms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but Intelligent Design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all” – Daniel Dennett.

Fossil Record

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

Homologies

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

Distribution in time and space

Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

Evidence by example

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

MOre at

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

William2006 on December 28, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Bunkum Sir!

The Basic Process of Evolution
The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:

* It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.

* The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

* As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.

The Simplest Example of Evolution
The process of evolution acts on an E. coli cell by creating a mutation in the DNA. It is not uncommon for the DNA strand in an E. coli bacterium to get corrupted. An X-ray, a cosmic ray or a stray chemical reaction can change or damage the DNA strand. In most cases, a particular E. coli cell with mutated DNA will either die, fix the damage in the strand or fail to reproduce. In other words, most mutations go nowhere. But every so often, a mutation will actually survive and the cell will reproduce.

Imagine, for example, a bunch of identical E. coli cells that are living in a petri dish. With plenty of food and the right temperature, they can double every 20 minutes. That is, each E. coli cell can duplicate its DNA strand and split into two new cells in 20 minutes.

Now, imagine that someone pours an antibiotic into the petri dish. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by gumming up one of the enzymes that the bacteria needs to live. For example, one common antibiotic gums up the enzyme process that builds the cell wall. Without the ability to add to the cell wall, the bacteria cannot reproduce, and eventually they die.

When the antibiotic enters the dish, all of the bacteria should die. But imagine that, among the many millions of bacteria living in the dish, one of them acquires a mutation that makes its cell-wall-building enzyme different from the norm. Because of the difference, the antibiotic molecule does not attach properly to the enzyme, and therefore does not affect it. That one E. coli cell will survive, and since all of its neighbors are dead, it can reproduce and take over the petri dish. There is now a strain of E. coli that is immune to that particular antibiotic.

In this example, you can see evolution at work. A random DNA mutation created an E. coli cell that is unique. The cell is unaffected by the antibiotic that kills all of its neighbors. This unique cell, in the environment of that petri dish, is able to survive.

E. coli are about as simple as living organisms can get, and because they reproduce so rapidly you can actually see evolution’s effects on a normal time scale. In the past several decades, many different types of bacteria have become immune to antibiotics. In a similar way, insects become immune to insecticides because they breed so quickly. For example, DDT-resistant mosquitoes evolved from normal mosquitoes.

In most cases, evolution is a much slower process.

Creating a New Species
Imagine that you take a group of Saint Bernards and put them on one island, and on another island you put a group of Chihuahuas. Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas are both members of the species “dog” right now — a Saint Bernard can mate with a Chihuahua (probably through artificial insemination) and create normal puppies. They will be odd-looking puppies, but normal puppies nonetheless.

Given enough time, it is possible to see how speciation — the development of a new species through evolution — could occur among the Saint Bernards and the Chihuahuas on their respective islands. What would happen is that the Saint Bernard gene pool would acquire random mutations shared by all of the Saint Bernards on the island (through interbreeding), and the Chihuahuas would acquire a completely different set of random mutations shared by all of the Chihuahuas on their island. These two gene pools would eventually become incompatible with one another, to the point where the two breeds could no longer interbreed. At that point, you have two distinct species.

Because of the huge size difference between a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua, it would be possible to put both types of dogs on the same island and have the exact same process occur. The Saint Bernards would naturally breed with only the Saint Bernards and the Chihuahuas would naturally breed with only the Chihuahuas, so speciation would still occur.

If you put two groups of Chihuahuas on two separate islands, the process would also occur. The two groups of Chihuahuas would accumulate different collections of mutations in their gene pools and eventually become different species that could not interbreed.

The theory of evolution proposes that the process that might create a separate Chihuahua-type species and Saint Bernard-type species is the same process that has created all of the species we see today. When a species gets split into two (or more) distinct subsets, for example by a mountain range, an ocean or a size difference, the subsets pick up different mutations, create different gene pools and eventually form distinct species.

More at

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

windbag-

Why do some kids end up born with little tails?

…

Missing logic is a missing link, too.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM

They aren’t born with “little tails.”

The occurrence you refer to is an anomaly, occurring infrequently.

These are not tails. They are a “caudal appendage,” and, unlike a tail, these “caudal appendages” are merely subcutaneous tissue.

A tail has bones, muscle, blood supply, and so on. Tails can move, as in “The dogs wags his tail,” or as in “The horse swatted the flies with her tail”

The caudal appendage is an anomaly, such as a cleft palate, or a misshapen ear. They do not have muscle, bone, etc., as an extension of the spinal column, and they do not move.

If we share our ancestry with the apes, creatures who do not have tails, as Darwinists-evolutionists claim, then a tail in a human being would not be an example or proof of evolution, or decent from ancestors who don’t have tails.

It would not be a remant of those tailless ancestors. It would be a NEW appendage “evolving” in humans, or new, added information.

Of course, if we did not “evolve” from the same ancestors as our tailless cousins, the apes, but, perhaps we evolved from the dog, or the cat, or the lizard, or the alligator, or the cow instead, all possessing tails, then if humans DID have a tail, perhaps you would have a point.

Unfortunately, however, we do not have tails, so, what’s the point of it all anyway?

(Missing logic is a missing link, too. profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM)

profitsbeard,

I hope this helps

Take care.

William

windbag-

Why do we have five toes (vestigal fingers) when a simple folding duck foot flap would work as well?

…

Missing logic is a missing link, too.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM

We don’t have “vestigial fingers” for toes. We have toes for toes!

What makes you think that our toes are “vestigial fingers?”

Remember, it is you who assumes that toes are “vestigial.”

Why don’t you explain what you think?

Oh, wait! You already did.

You said ” … simple folding duck foot flap would work as well…”

So you prefer a different design, one of your choosing, which means that this is a rhetorical question, based on your belief that you could design a better foot, or come up with a different design.

That has nothing to do with origins, or the authenticity of Darwinism-evolutionism, and more to do with personal preference, imagination, what-ifs, and critiquing the way we are made.

Back to the assumption that our five toes are “vestigial.”

Who says that the ARE vestigial?

You do.

That must make it so.

Vestigial, when used by Darwinists-evolutionists is supposed to mean that something is left over, or a remnant, of some nebulous evolutionary ancestry. The fact that we have five toes on each foot has nothing to do with evolutionary ancestry, but it has everything to do with how we are made today.

You think they were originally fingers, as in “vestigial fingers,” and that they “evolved” into toes?

Prove it!

And, while you are at it, you can ponder this …

Those “toes” which are supposed to be vestigial fingers of some evolutionary ancestor are not an example of evolution, for evolution deals with increasing complexity and benefits.

If our original, prime evolutionary ancestor was a single celled organism from a rock soup, who “evolved” into trilobites, lizards, fish, and so on, then birds, wolves, rhinos, elephants, whales, dolphins, and so on, and eventually to ape like creatures, then eventually into human beings, all without a single witness to this occurrence, and no convincing evidence to support it, but lots of broken dreams as quite a few examples of the “supportive evidence” for Darwinism-evolutionism in regard to mankind’s evolutionary ancestry turned out to be no evidence at all, and in a number of cases, complete, unadulterated frauds.

If fingers on our feet were an advantage, an increase, an improvement in evolution, then the loss of fingers, turning instead into toes, is NOT evolution!

The loss of fingers on feet, which, by Darwinism-evolutionism’s philosophy were an evolutionary improvement, an increase. The transformation of fingers on our feet into toes is not evolution, but it is devolution, the loss of information, the loss of usage, and the loss of whatever “advantage” these appendages, these alleged “vestigial fingers” might have afforded us, or our “evolutionary ancestors.”

Regarding your suggestion that a webbed foot like a duck would be just as good a design, have you ever watched a duck try to run?

Not very graceful at it!

A webbed, duck like foot might give us an advantage in the Olympic swim competition though, don’t you think?

Missing logic is a missing link, too. – (profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM)

William

windbag-

profitsbeard asked “What are our canine teeth for?”.

profitsbeard on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM

profitsbeard,

All our teeth are used for digestion.

When we take food, we use our teeth to help process that food as part of our digestive system, beginning in the mouth.

The food gives us nourishment.

The design that we have includes a set of teeth which can bite into fruits and vegetables, a set of teeth which enable humans to mash leafy material, nuts, grains, legumes, etc., as part of our digestion as we ingest foods which the human body is most nourished by and compatible with, and for which our teeth and digestive system are designed to digest and benefit from.

The food is there, growing on trees, in the ground, in the field, and so on. It is provided for us.

Missing logic is a missing link, too. profitsbread

William

Evolution can be observed.

1- Take some Petri dishes with a substrate and seed it with some bacteria.

2- When the colonies are strong in each dish, take an anti-biotic and treat each dish with a diluted solution.

3- Dispose of the colonies that die and transplant the strongest bacteria to several new Petri dishes.

4- Repeat step 2 with a stronger does of the anti-biotic.

5- Over time bacteria will evolve that are resistant to the anti-biotic.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Wow!

You made me a believer!!!!

Actually,

That is not evolution.

Also, you assume that there will be bacteria which survive, or “evolve” and become resistant to “new antibiotics.”

Problem. All the bacteria could be killed, leaving NO bacteria to “evolve,” and hence, your little experiment is a dud.

So, sorry, but that is not convincing.

The bacteria do not “evolve” into something else, such as a a creature which is part bacteria, part spider, part gorilla, and so on, or a mouse with wings who can recite the Vedas, solve complex mathematical problems, speak several languages, or fly like Mighty Mouse.

The bacteria do not “evolve” into some other form of creature.

They remain bacteria.

You also have to define what you mean by “strong bacteria,” for that is crucial when we are trying to support the belief in the survival of the fittest.

What constitutes strong bacteria?

Their ability to survive the antibiotic you give them?

Perhaps those who survive the antibiotic you give them will die if you gave them a different antibiotic, while the bacteria who died from the fist bacteria might survive if you used a different bacteria, while the survivors of the first bacteria might die from a different bacteria.

Often the fittest are the ones who die, while the least fit survive. This is really, quite often, not the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the luckiest.

It also depends upon who reproduces. The strongest are not always the ones who reproduce. Whoever reproduces will pass on their genetic material and traits, while those who don’t reproduce won’t pass on those qualities.

Once again, it is more the survival of the luckiest more than it is the survival of the fittest.

During the attack on 9/11/01, there were many victims who died who were much more fit that many who survived. Some pretty, curvaceous female in high heels who cannot run a marathon, has a high pule rate, cannot bench press her own body weight, and whose parents have cancer or heart disease, might have survived, while some other victims, with the strength of three men, can run the 100 meters in 10 seconds flat, can run the marathon and places in the top 100, can bench press 500 lbs, has an IQ of 150, can hold his breath underwater for three minutes, and whose parents are fit as fiddles and will live to be 113 and die a peaceful death without pain, or disease, that strong fit man might have died while the weaker, less fit female survived.

The female in the high heels without all that strength, speed, endurance intelligence, and so on, and who inherited some less health ensuring genetics from her parents, might go on to marry, have children, pass on her genes, so also her genetic material survives and carries on.

Survival of the luckiest.

William

I have put my faith in God.

Rose on December 28, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Meh. Faith has nothing to do with it. One there is a mountain of evidence for and the other has no evidence at all.

Do you go to the dentist or do you accept Gods dental plan for you.