I won’t keep ya much longer tonight- We’ve covered alot- my brain is frazzling (stop laughing)
[Creationists are always throwing out this “fully formed” phrase, and invariably attaching it to phenomena for which many, many stages of complexity, development and variation exist.]
Yep- many fully formed complexities exist for which we have no evidence to suggest any such accumulations of mutations could or did produce. Variation is no argument against design. Variation more so shows that design is a workable hypothesis. We know for example that entirely similiar systems arise through entirely different processes on both the biological and embryonic levels. Differing Cell structures and processes preoduce similiar results ie: Soem frogs start off as tadpoles, some are born fully formed-ready to go.
[I’ve never once heard or read a creationist to explain what “fully formed” actually meant in any particular instance.]
Well grab a beer nd get ready for the first answer ever then lol. Fully functioning. We don’t find the ecoli flagellum in bits and pieces- we see a fully formed, fully functional complex ‘motor’ with all the working parts inplace in the records. We find fully formed bats in the records, not examples of all the organs needed for echolocation scattered throughout an ‘evolving’ bat. Just as someone who found a motor in a junkyard and not taking the possibility of a designer seriously, so too, an evolutionist who rules out design (and the real reason they do, is based on a priori beleif), it would be a mistake to hold such a biased view.
[Again, that just not historically true. Do you have any idea of how science works? Have you ever read a research article, attended a scientific convention or seminar, etc?]
Sorry to do this- but a repost is warrented: Symantics- As you point out folks beleivedcin old age BEFORE- meaning even before they had all these so called ‘accurate dating methods’ that we have today- so of course they HAD to rely on priori beliefs as to how old the THOUGHT the earth was. And, even though we have different measuring methods today, we still MUST go with a priori beleif of wicked old age due to the fact that the mthods have nothign with which to calibrate the methods with. The priori beleif comes into play, and simply throws out any dates given that don’t support that priori belief.
[A body part doesn’t have to evolve and then sit around waiting millions of years for other parts to evolve. It has some function (or maybe no function IF it is a physiological consequence of something else that DOES have a function) all along]
And Darwin ALSO recognized that these ‘shifting functions’ have not been recorded and also ignore syatems such as the ecoli ‘motor’ in which those parts would have been useless- you’re suggesting that they remained hanging around as ‘pseudo parts’ with other functions while all the other ‘psuedo parts’ evolved until once inplace, the gene coding decided all the parts should converge and produce a whole functioning system. A motor without a piston is useless and excess baggage. A psiton in a species is uselss outside of being a part of the motor.
[Birds may have had feathers for insulation, for instance, or display, before they were later adpated for flight]
Ah, but this presumpposes all first birds had only insulation and not feathers for flight- it’s your opinion, nothing more. And even allowing this to be the case, they always remained feathers (only in your scenario, the dominent genes that produced better feathers slowly evolved overtime- but I find it odd that in the billions of years necessary for this to happen, that they were really concidered ‘better’ given the fact that the next ‘better’ feathers were still useless for flight). The rest of your bird paragraph just elaborates on your opinion.
[This is really elementary stuff. If you don’t know enough to anticipate and address these kind of points then, frankly, you don’t know enough about evolution to effectively critique it.]
easy now- Your ‘elementary’ stuff is assumption based and biased and lacks evidence. Deriding the opposition does nothing to strengthen your position.
[So what is it? Is it a notochord with an spinal nerve column but no bone? Is that fully formed or partially formed?]
Spinal nerve column? In a worm? With no spine? Ah- I see. I’m going out on a limb here and suggest that they are indeed fully formed species specific and necessary for the notochord worm. Have we found worms with evolving spinal vetebrea? Or will you present a unique centepede, point out some semi similiar system and suggest the two are related despite the immense intermediary fossils being absent in the records?
[What about some fishes were the vertebrae aren’t yet vertebrae, but are all in separate pieces just sort of vaguely surrounding the notochord?]
The vertebra are all formed and free floating and non functioning? Examples?
[What about vertebrae that are just small slivers of bone sitting on top of the notochord, serving no function in structural support but serving only as attachment points for muscles?]
They are... attachment points for muscles. Can you show the ‘slivers’ evolving into vertebre? And ‘no function’? You immediately provide a function right after claiming there is no function.
[There are OFTEN such cross disciplinary conflicts in science. But your imagination as to how they are handled is completely divorced from all reality.]
No- it’s divorced from your priori belief. Stultis, I aint stating that evolutinists are divorced from reality because they beleive in macroevolution that has no biological possibility of happening, please return the favor and refrain from petty insinuations. For hte most part you have, and I thank you- but every now and again you seem to siezure and do so.