There is absolutely no scientific evidence for any species transforming itself into a more complex one.
Posted on 09/08/2003 4:58:18 PM PDT by bondserv
Something like the Mongol pony of today, yes. Bigger than a donkey, but not exactly a Clydesdale or even a thoroughbred.
Those things have been seen.
Really? Where else than in TalkOrigins? There is absolutely no scientific evidence for any species transforming itself into a more complex one.
We are speaking of Darwinian evolution, not evolution in general. A Christian evolution would be one where God created life and set it on a specified path to unfold eventually into man. But this would be a designed life. Design from the beginning, but nevertheless designed. Darwinism denies divine design in all shape and form and posits instead its own 'creator', the non-heavenly 'natural selection' which supposedly creates by killing.
Even the title has a question mark at the end. No big deal. We shouldn't have a problem with subjuctive expressions in scholarly writings as long as assumptions and facts are labled as such. What overtoasts the buns, however, is the insistence that large volumes of scholarly work regardless of their size and longevity - justify an unquestionable predominance in the academic world.
A simple child can see Intelligent Design all over the place and does not even need words to sense it or explain it, but somehow fifteen decades of ever-evolving evolution textbooks are going to satisfactorily explain away what has been obvious to to an exceedingly great number of people throughout history.
By sheer volume of subtle omissions against a Creator God, and by sheer vice of ommatidial omissions WRT whole systems of being, diehard evolutionists further establish that which is more plain than a brilliantly designed sunrise: An Almighty One made this stuff and is behind this stuff, guiding and sustaining it continually.
"Thou dost protest too much." Thousands of corollaries and tens-of-thousands of books. It's easy, given much time, many words, and conviction of heart, to "dismiss" a Creator God from all consideration. But a person - at least one who has a conscience and comon sense - will always have doubts as to whether those thoughts and words accurately fit objective reality.
So . . . all those big, bad books of knowledge are out there. No doubt one can make them sound as sensible as anything. It's not hard to do. Not much harder than filing down a square peg to make it fit a round hole provided one has the discipline. But who is anyone to declare their theory about origins and destinations of the world as the only one worthy of hearing in an academic setting?
Only a sneering pissant about to run into a three-by-four that he swears does not exist.
You have a firm grasp on reality. Thank you for your cogent thoughts on the topic.
The point about right and left handed amino acids is that in nature they both occur with about equal frequency. In life only the left handed are used. That they are all lefthanded is needed to join them together to make proteins. This is a big problem for abiogenesis and origin of life where supposedly randomness 'created' everything.
And why does this refute evolution?
I did not say it refuted evolution. I said that that is how some sort of evolution would be compatible with Christian principles. Darwinian evolution is completely atheistic and it is proven by its major promoters - Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Dawkins, Eldredge and Gould - all of them atheists.
Why would that be?
And yet indistinguishable from the spontaneous.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for any species transforming itself into a more complex one.
Let's see it. I mean real scientific evidence, not blogs from TalkOrigins or Don Lindsay. This is a challenge to you show scientific evidence of the transformation of species into more complex ones. Draw all the cartoons you like AFTER YOU BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH FACTS.
Only when they are in between lifetimes, at which times they go back into the earth and enter the food chain again. The cycle repeats itself. Then again, maybe not.
The proper question is; How did an undirected natural force know how to clear an eye lens up, before knowing clarity is an issue? Did it call a temp enzyme service to check which did the trick?
Or even another question...how would a cloudy eye tissue survive over a billion years (since it would be useless) and "evolve" into a clear lens? Can't have it both ways, you know
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.