Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am perfectly willing to accept that a self-reproducing molecule formed by chance shortly after the earth formed.
That macroevolution has been occurring for the four and a half billion years since that time is made perfectly clear by the fossil record.
What has not been established is that the macroevolution that we see in the fossil record, especially since the Cambrian explosion, could have occurred without the guidance of some sort of intelligence.
Creationists are entirely justified in pointing out how unlikely this is.
I am perfectly willing to accept that a self-reproducing molecule formed by chance shortly after the earth formed.
That macroevolution has been occurring for the four and a half billion years since that time is made perfectly clear by the fossil record.
What has not been established is that the macroevolution that we see in the fossil record, especially since the Cambrian explosion, could have occurred without the guidance of some sort of intelligence.
Creationists are entirely justified in pointing out how unlikely this is.
Pre -p.s that link is about one of the argument for how a molecule could begin to self -replicate.
When "Micro" (as it is called) evolution happens before our very eyes without the slightest indication that a god is involved or needed, then there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that a god is needed for "Macro" evolution. Because macro and micro are exactly the same kind of evolution. "Macro" is just over a far longer time and results in much greater changes in appearance.
There is no valid objection to evolutionary change of one species so much that it looks quite different and has to be given a new name (1) There is shedloads of evidence that this happened in the past and Creationism can only deny the evidence - usually with irrelevant, trivial, misunderstood and misrepresented arguments.
(1) effectively, this giving of species -names is a human convenience and does not reflect some kind of genetic pigeon -hole that exists in nature - which is what the Creationists "Kinds" theory postulates.
So if a kindergartener can make a paper airplane then there is no reason to doubt that a bunch of blind and retarded kindergarteners can build a 747 given enough time?
I would call that a slippery slope fallacy
A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
So if a kindergartener can make a paper airplane then there is no reason to doubt that a bunch of blind and retarded kindergarteners can build a 747 given enough time?
I would call that a slippery slope fallacy
It might be a fallacy if that was what anyone but you were saying...
No, the point is this:
We can and do observe organisms evolve in response to environmental pressure. We can see it in fruitflys, in Lenski's e. coli, in the viruses we attempt to inoculate against. Furthermore, we can generate a mathematical model of evolution, and demonstrate that it is able to achieve local maxima of a fitness function for a given set of conditions. We use these mathematical constructs, generally referred to as genetic algorithms, all the time in various engineering disciplines.
We have seen in the lab yeast evolve into multicellular clusters from single celled organisms. In fact, in Lenski's experiments we have arguably seen speciation, although as Arq points out, speciation is not some magical boundary to be crossed. It is simply an organism evolving beyond a man-made classification or grouping.
So given that we can see evolution actually occurring within our short timescales, with no apparent guidance or intelligence controlling it, there is no fundamental reason why evolution on the large scale requires a mind to oversee it.
So if a kindergartener can make a paper airplane then there is no reason to doubt that a bunch of blind and retarded kindergarteners can build a 747 given enough time?
This from someone who actually has "rationalist" under his name?
This from someone who actually has "rationalist" under his name?
typical atheist logic: anybody who doesnt 100% agree with me must be irrational
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
