reef_dart21
Member
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3193638
I am not a fan of Intelligent Design yet because there are still many holes in their theories. They don't have the advantage that the theory of evolution had: 100 years of scrutiny and modification.
But to say that the Cambrian Explosion has been explained is farsighted at best. I mean, I could come up with a theory that the chicken suit reef dart wears came from Krypton and explain that meteors formed with feathers on their surface, and then grew wings, flying through space, hitting earth, then got sown together by the wind, blown onto reefdarts doorstep for him to find and put on. I mean, how far fetched to these theories need to get before we realize that they're simply not conceivable? With each step comes another batch of variables, all with their own properties of "chance." And it's exponential - each step multiplies the last, in a 1-2-4-8-16 fashion. I'm not saying all theories are like this, but they've really baked up some serious ones along the process.
The Flagellar motor defies natural selection in the sense that it has 40 parts in it's makeup. None of the parts would have worked in any other way. If single traits are added and removed over millions of years, how was that the case with the flagellar motor? It would be like getting a 40-piece puzzle and saying that it randomly solved itself. We know that not to be the case today, and although we can't wait millions of years to see if it actually does, again, it's simply not conceivable. Even if we placed the puzzle on the ground and allowed erosion to "solve" this puzzle, how is that an answer?
I would find it almost more conceivable, and more reasonable, to look at our world and think it was "designed" in some form. But Intelligent Design is still in it's infancy. I don't want to vehemently defend it.... yet.
If you wanna see evolution happen before your eyes get an HIV virus apply some antibiotics then watch some live reproduce and then apply a little antibiotic again and no viruses will die, thus demonstrating evolution and natural selection.
how does the paragraph in red pretain to evolution? if anything that would supports lamarcks theory of design by choice which had already been disproven.
http:///forum/post/3193638
I am not a fan of Intelligent Design yet because there are still many holes in their theories. They don't have the advantage that the theory of evolution had: 100 years of scrutiny and modification.
But to say that the Cambrian Explosion has been explained is farsighted at best. I mean, I could come up with a theory that the chicken suit reef dart wears came from Krypton and explain that meteors formed with feathers on their surface, and then grew wings, flying through space, hitting earth, then got sown together by the wind, blown onto reefdarts doorstep for him to find and put on. I mean, how far fetched to these theories need to get before we realize that they're simply not conceivable? With each step comes another batch of variables, all with their own properties of "chance." And it's exponential - each step multiplies the last, in a 1-2-4-8-16 fashion. I'm not saying all theories are like this, but they've really baked up some serious ones along the process.
The Flagellar motor defies natural selection in the sense that it has 40 parts in it's makeup. None of the parts would have worked in any other way. If single traits are added and removed over millions of years, how was that the case with the flagellar motor? It would be like getting a 40-piece puzzle and saying that it randomly solved itself. We know that not to be the case today, and although we can't wait millions of years to see if it actually does, again, it's simply not conceivable. Even if we placed the puzzle on the ground and allowed erosion to "solve" this puzzle, how is that an answer?
I would find it almost more conceivable, and more reasonable, to look at our world and think it was "designed" in some form. But Intelligent Design is still in it's infancy. I don't want to vehemently defend it.... yet.
If you wanna see evolution happen before your eyes get an HIV virus apply some antibiotics then watch some live reproduce and then apply a little antibiotic again and no viruses will die, thus demonstrating evolution and natural selection.
how does the paragraph in red pretain to evolution? if anything that would supports lamarcks theory of design by choice which had already been disproven.
