Fact, Fable, and Darwin (If you haven't read this already, you should!!!)

American Enterprise Magazine ^ | 8/04 | Rodney Stark

[Havoc]

I like you lol

[Dimensio]

Where's the cat/dog transitional form that came out of the laboratory?

Anyone with the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution would not ask to see such a thing, because they know that evolution predicts no such creature.

[RobRoy]

Holy cow man, enough with the ad-Hominem. Did I not say that was a STARTING POINT!

This isn't a term paper, as much as you would like to apply that rule to the Creationists here. Get a grip.

[Havoc]

Of course, Creationists also fail to notice that bat wings are different than bird wings. So, we've already established that the Creator is inefficient (vestigial bones in snakes and whales) and now we can see that he forgets old designs and goes to the trouble of re-inventing the wheel, or the wing. Since bats evolved after birds, why not just use the bird wing structure?

Inefficient. Really. I'm sure God would enjoy your constructive criticism on how he should have done it. Of course, measuring efficiency would greatly depend on what the goal was, wouldn't it... Can you tell us what God was aiming for - or are you just being flip because you having nothing usefully intelligent to offer that can actually be gauged.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

How very typically "Darwinist"

Pay no attention to the insult-bot. :)

[Modernman]

How do you know a bat without wings never existed.

Sigh. By definition, they weren't bats if they didn't have wings.

And btw, why would I particularly care one way or another if either foxes or squirrels can glide?

A rational person might consider that to be evidence of transitional species.

[balrog666]

If you think that you can falsify what has been theorized, then do so, but whining about how you don't like it simply because it contradicts what you want to believe only makes you look like a crybaby.

Truly an amazing festival of the crybabies here today!

[Modernman]

Inefficient. Really. I'm sure God would enjoy your constructive criticism on how he should have done it.

Bird wings work great. What's the point of creating a whole new structure for bat wings? AFAIK, there is no advantage to bat wings over bird wings. Give me one rational reason for doing so.

Of course, measuring efficiency would greatly depend on what the goal was, wouldn't it... Can you tell us what God was aiming for

No. And that supports the argument that bats and birds evolved, rather than being created. Give me one good reason why a designer would create two different structures to do the exact same thing.

[betty boop]

Thanks, Tribune7, for the ping to an excellent post!

[Dimensio]

For what it's worth, bats aren't rodents nor did they descend from rodents.

Of course not. The Bible clearly states that bats are birds.

[Modernman]

And you still haven't responded to the evidence of human transitionals that I posted in #208. Feel free to get back to me on that one at any time.

And the killer whale speciation, too.

[Havoc]

Small, exposed pieces of bones attached to a hip.

That have no use, or you just don't know what use they serve? And is it an actual hip and a leg, or is it just something you point to and say it looks similar.. Really. Tell us, what do the addenoids do (sp?). Cause my brother had his removed though specialists at IU med center admitted they're clueless as to what purposes they might serve. Right. The pretense is that you know; but, the reality is that you don't. Thank you for playing. Next.

[Modernman]

And let's not even talk about flying fish. Okay, they only glide, but I think they're kind of neat.

http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/flyingfish/flyingfish.html

[Dimensio]

Please see Post 102.

I saw post 102. Not a single one of your mined quotes discusses "natural selection".

I ask again, what do the origins of functioning nucleic acids and proteins have to do with natural selection?

[Havoc]

And, going from there, let's figure out how much we can advance mankind by simply stating "You simply don't understand it" to everything?

Is it an advance to label something under the pretense that you know what it is. Or is it an advance to actually discover what it is. Two different tracks. Science is supposed to be in the business of reporting on the observable. If you don't know the answers to questions about what you observe, the idea is to make reasonable efforts at finding out the answers and if you can't - admitting it would be useful. But putting a label on something you don't understand and pontificating about what it might be, then selling that as the fact isn't science. Snake oil is a better term that leaps to mind..

[Havoc]

Oh good grief. It's no longer a dog because it's fur is black and brown now instead of just black. Call the papers. We got evolution going on here - not. You guys really do beg credulity don't you.

[Modernman]

That have no use, or you just don't know what use they serve? And is it an actual hip and a leg, or is it just something you point to and say it looks similar

It's well settled among biologists that these are actual hips and legs, rather than something else.

If you have another idea what they might be, please speak up.

If not: Thank you for playing. Next.

[Modernman]

Oh good grief. It's no longer a dog because it's fur is black and brown now instead of just black. Call the papers. We got evolution going on here - not. You guys really do beg credulity don't you.

If, in the future, these whales were no longer able to mate with other killer whales, would that be enough for you?

How do you define different species?

[Dimensio]

Modernman, you've forgotten the fundamental rule of arguing evolution with a creationist: the creationist gets to define all of the terms. Whatever a creationist tells you is the way it is. If a creationist's definition of "evolution" differs from the one that you and every rational scientist on the planet uses, the creationist is in the right. When a creationist speaks of "no transitionals", they're referring to that which they define as transitionals. By definition, anything that does exist or has existed is not a transitional, therefore they are right.

[Havoc]

You're kidding, right. The Immune system is now being used as an example of evolution. Based on how much research. Tell us, are we more or less resistant to heart disease than we were 3000 years ago. That's right, you weren't measuring such things back then. There is no data. Therefore we cannot compare data to 3000 years ago to say that humans are overall stronger and more resistant than back then.. No fair stating the obvious, huh.