Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

What do you mean by “neo-Darwinism”?

Not what i meant. The garbage statement is not to judge the morality of evolutionism- it is to suggest that when one makes accessments about our very reality that, for example, disallow intelligence, then the essence of the data or the cherry picked data that assumes naturalism inputted into the program will inevitably spit out a proportionate outcome that matches the essence. Garbage in garbage out.

First show me the processes of mutation and selection that evolved monkeys fr aeomebas. I have seen all of the various thoughts on this and for the life of me, the universal naturalistic model is bewilderingly anti intellectual gobity gook. If im right and it is absolutely true that naturalistic universal is a farce, this means that all of a sudden One enters the room. I believe that One to be the very God and Creator in scripture. If He is in the room, then i will warn you of mentioning to Him that you think that we are evolved monkeys. Read Job 38 sometime. Jobs friends gave a lot of banter about what they thought was right and used really intelligent sounding and sometimes theologically correct language to bolster their claim. Then God steps into the scene and read for yourself His response.

The God i worship is not the joel osteen version. He is the version in Job 38

@T_aquaticus

[Per another thread: See what I mean… some atheists just don’t want to listen.]

Let me suggest that you employ the search engine provided by Google.

I am not asking what I think it is. I am asking what you think neo-Darwinism is.

2 Likes

Sorry. I took your question to indicate that you didn’t know what Neo-Darwinism is.

So… are you going to answer the question?

The answer to the question is that “Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism is whatever a person wants it to be.”

I found out about this thru the Fox News website.

This bird has been designated Eofringillirostrum boudreauxi, and it isn’t around anymore. Your point?

3 posts were split to a new topic: Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?

A post was merged into an existing topic: Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?

Sloppy language in that article. If you look at the actual article, which unfortunately is paywalled, you will see that this bird isn’t a passerine but just a fairly close relative, related to the extinct Zygodactylidae. A fine example of an evolutionary transition, in fact.

And of course it’s also support for the point that we find new fossil taxa all the time, and that this tells us the known record is far from complete.

If we have a nearly complete record, why is it that those modern mammal and mollusk species you mention are only found in fairly recent deposits, mammals almost all within the last million years and mollusks almost all within the last 10 million years? Why aren’t any of them found in the Green River or Burgess Shale formations, which show exceptional preservation of whole communities?

1 Like

Thats a good question. Are you interested to see what Kurt Wise has to say? Video about an hour long and if you can bear the idea of a global flood, the data is compelling towards the Biblical young earth model. . Here it is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o

So i have so many questions…such as can convergent evolution really explain marsupial populations and placental populations that both have similar kinds in both but just differing reproductive organs? And how is it that the fossil record is supposed to only consist of a small percentage of species yet 99% of ones current types are represented?

We are probably all going to be really surprised one day to find out how the mechanisms and strategies God used to speciate the planet differ from all of our notions. Scripture shows Him to be a God who does not offer exacting patterns in how He works …prob to keep us on a relational and dependent level with Him instead of a mighty fast food kiosk to order up and expect quick satisfaction.

What?

2 Likes

Isn’t that the same falsehood you posted a week ago and which was soundly beaten into the proverbial pink mist?

2 Likes

What??

Yes, but not enough to watch an hour-long video. Your idea of what’s compelling is not all that impressive.

No, that would be difficult to explain. However, it isn’t true unless you stretch “similar”. They differ in a host of ways in addition to reproductive organs. A marsupial “wolf” doesn’t actually look that much like a wolf, and the details are all different.

Because the record gets worse as sediments get older. More of them have been lost to erosion or metamorphosis. That has a name in the literature: the pull of the recent. Did you know that about 50% of all dinosaur genera (not just species) are known from only a single specimen? How does that fit with your notions of completeness?

If you’re interested in correct terminology, whatever you did there is not what “speciate” means. Speciate: to evolve reproductive isolation between populations.

Sounds like he’s insecure in his divinity. No wonder he’s a jealous God.

30 posts were split to a new topic: Kurt Wise: Dawkin’s A Honest Creationist