why did you remove those "unattributed quotes"??? If you wanted the links I could have given them. Seems to be a case of insecure censorship.
Kevin Solway wrote:
I grant that if we were created by some kind of alien being, it could just be that they simply re-used the same parts in making different animals, because they were too lazy to start from scratch each time.
even being created by alien beings raises other important questions.
Aside from that, these same apparent "homologous" structures have another problem, they don't even code for the same place or for the same genes on the DNA of these different species. also, many creatures don't have these homologous structures, and some are downright exotic. The problem lies in that mutations would need to be so drastic (which haven't happened) as to create entirely alien structures, regardless if it's "gradual," making it "gradual" doesn't change anything, the problem lies in that these alien structures would kill the fetus.
Unsurprisingly, no true intermediate fossils have ever been found.
No. Evolution is about variation. If we are all too similar, and catch a disease, then it might wipe out the whole lot of us.
no, evolution is about speciation
, which has never happened, nor have we found any conclusive evidence that it has happened.
New genetic material comes about through mutation.
Hah. Mutations don't "create" new genetic DNA that leads to say wings. No genetic mutation has ever created or been led to create alien structures in a creature, not even a feather on a reptile. Mutations destroy genetic information, and reduce
complexity, they never increase complexity.http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
Genes are just patterns of bases (CGAT, from memory). Different patterns of these bases constitute new genes.
not at all. It's not that simple. It's also how these genes are combined and where they are, drastic mutations simply destroy existing information, they always have to get something in exchange for losing something else. Furthermore, mutations that are too drastic (which is what are needed in evolution since mutations don't successively build on each other, and not even in the same location) kill the fetus. It's like cows giving birth to giraffes, and no "gradual" process is going to stop the deformities, because all those gradual steps require drastic mutations that will abort the fetus.
When bits of DNA are shut off, damaged, removed, or added, this creates more variation, and hence speciation.
umm no, variation does not equal speciation. Variation in human height, does not create a new species out of humans. Mutations do not add new bits of genetic info "from the outside" they always use the existing one and hence reduce complexity and information. This is like mutations in bacteria that make it antibiotic resistant, the receptor is damaged so nothing can latch on to it, which reduces complexity, and it certainly has not advanced in becoming something other than bacteria
If we were created by an alien being (for which there's no supporting evidence), it's up to you whether you want to call them "supreme" or not. I personally would just call them an "alien being".
I didn't necessarily say that. I said a supreme being could have created humans, and also other aliens.
The same can be said of your "supreme being".
yes, but I never said that causality was a "logical absolute." I atleast admit that the supreme being would be uncreated and hence an exception to causality
By the way, there's no point in your making long quotes from creationists, as its just like pasting whole chapters from the Bible. You can provide links if you want.
these aren't just "long quotes from creationists" they are using scientific observations. You conveniently put in "creationists" to defame and mindlessly try to dismiss them. How about I put quotes from atheist evolutionists?
Grassé: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
Frank Salisbury: "Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim"
J. Darnell: "The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely"
of course Kevin isn't interested in scientific validity and evidence, he has contempt for such things you see, as it doesn't fit with his worldview. Instead he calls scientific observations "quotes by creationists"