More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[abu afak]

...So, if you look at 2022 Ford Mustang Hybrid, you will find some features in common with the 1908 Model T. Because the Designers along the way gradually build on that Design. That's what Designers do. They certainly do not make random changes and hope that one out of a million of those changes will be useful.

Ok, what is the rest of this "overwhelming" evidence of common descent? What is any evidence at all against a designer, when species seem so obviously designed?

You're a creationist.

Wiki:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5]
Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that Lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore Not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to Creation science and Creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of Creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot Uncouple itself from its Creationist, and thus Religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore Violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15].."
.....

`

 

[abu afak]

Flops believes in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
He's a Fraud.
ie,
Post #352 accidentally OUTING himself. (then lied about it)

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3: In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.

www.usmessageboard.com

Who sent the meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
Was that another co-inkie-dink?

`

 

[abu afak]

As strong as evidence can be, when it is what we find every single time. All in the same chronological order, in every part of the animal and plant kingdom.

Put that together with all of the mutual supportive evidence from every field of science, and the picture is very clear

Where you seem to be stuck is thinking humans are special little boys and girls of gods. Humans are animals and evolved from earlier species just as every other animal did. You also seem to think there is any real debate over this. There isn't. You are literally 150 years behind the world of intelligent humans.

I've posted the evidence scores of times.
Seymour Flops must be in denial to even post, ie, in this thread.
One of my many Haymaker evidentiary ones.
He HAD to put me on ignore not to have his worldview collapse..

`

 

[abu afak]

Hard evidence of Evo here too james bond

 

[james bond]

You're a creationist.

Wiki:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5]
Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that Lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore Not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to Creation science and Creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of Creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot Uncouple itself from its Creationist, and thus Religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore Violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15].."
.....

`

ID is not my argument, but it has parts that I can support. Let's define it first versus your evolution.

"The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian random-chance explanation, because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: 1) irreducible complexity, 2) specified complexity, and 3) the anthropic principle.

One of the arguments for Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, is defined as “a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated incomplete eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time."

I support the above and it destroys evolution right off the bat. I don't think any evolutionists was able to explain. Chalk up another victory for me and the creationists?

 

[james bond]

The second principle of ID does not seem as 100% certain to me. Can you produce any examples to counter it?

"Another argument for Intelligent Design, specified complexity, is the concept that, since specified complex patterns can be found in organisms, some form of guidance must have accounted for their origin. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random processes. For example, a room filled with 100 monkeys and 100 computers may eventually produce a few words, or maybe even a sentence, but it would never produce a Shakespearean play. And how much more complex is biological life than a Shakespearean play?"

The third principle does not seem 100% certain. One would have to prove this fine tuning and I don't think everything can be covered. Anyway, the evos have 0% evidence, so the third principle can stand or fail on its own.

The anthropic principle of Intelligent Design states that the world and universe are “fine-tuned” to allow for life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the atmosphere of the earth was altered slightly, many species would quickly cease to exist. If the earth were significantly closer to or further away from the sun, many species would cease to exist. The existence and development of life on Earth requires so many variables to be perfectly in tune that it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through random, uncoordinated events.

 

[james bond]

You're a creationist.

Wiki:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5]
Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that Lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore Not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to Creation science and Creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of Creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7]
This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot Uncouple itself from its Creationist, and thus Religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore Violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15].."
.....

`

The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision really hurt. The creation science people should not be lumped in with ID proponents. We'll have to see if creationists can come back with their own arguments.

 

[james bond]

Hard evidence of Evo here too james bond

Again, you are WRONG. Evolution has no evidence except to those who have fallen for its lies. I've explained it before and do it so again for the newcomers.

"As scientific understanding of the human body has grown, we have discovered the function of many organs that in the past were thought to be useless. The appendix, the pineal gland, the coccyx, and the thymus gland are just a few of the structures previously thought to have no significant function. In fact, declaring that certain structures have become useless may have actually hindered scientists’ search for their function. After all, if an organ is considered to be an evolutionary left over, why bother looking for its function?

Furthermore, the process by which an organ or structure could become vestigial has never been adequately explained. What is the mechanism that leads to loss of function? For example, consider the appendix, which was classified as a useless evolutionary leftover (although its function has been demonstrated in recent years). Evolutionists have postulated that in the past, man had a larger cecum, but as man progressed from a higher-fiber diet to a lower-fiber diet, the larger cecum became less necessary. Thus the appendix is said to have resulted from a loss of cecal size. What is not explained is just how a change in diet would change the DNA—adding, subtracting, or modifying information—in order to bring about this structural change in man.

The entire concept of vestigial organs is based on evolutionary storytelling. There is nothing in operational science to suggest that any of these so-called evolutionary “remnants” are less than fully functional in their present form.

Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy.

Our Creator, Jesus Christ, took on the attributes of humanity (yet without sin), humbled Himself, and entered this sin-cursed earth (Philippians 2:5–8). He then died on the cross, took the punishment for our sin upon Himself, and rose gloriously from the dead. His was a true rescue mission. (For more, take a look at the best news you’ll ever read.)

If you believe in His life, sacrifice, and resurrection, then, for you, one thing does become vestigial . . . death."

Vestigial Organs: A Vanishing Argument

Vestigial organs are supposedly useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. However, this claim requires preconceived belief and an ignorance of the evidence.

answersingenesis.org

 

[abu afak]

Again, you are WRONG. Evolution has no evidence except to those who have fallen for its lies. I've explained it before and do it so again for the newcomers.

"As scientific understanding of the human body has grown, we have discovered the function of many organs that in the past were thought to be useless. The appendix, the pineal gland, the coccyx, and the thymus gland are just a few of the structures previously thought to have no significant function. In fact, declaring that certain structures have become useless may have actually hindered scientists’ search for their function. After all, if an organ is considered to be an evolutionary left over, why bother looking for its function?

Furthermore, the process by which an organ or structure could become vestigial has never been adequately explained. What is the mechanism that leads to loss of function? For example, consider the appendix, which was classified as a useless evolutionary leftover (although its function has been demonstrated in recent years). Evolutionists have postulated that in the past, man had a larger cecum, but as man progressed from a higher-fiber diet to a lower-fiber diet, the larger cecum became less necessary. Thus the appendix is said to have resulted from a loss of cecal size. What is not explained is just how a change in diet would change the DNA—adding, subtracting, or modifying information—in order to bring about this structural change in man.

The entire concept of vestigial organs is based on evolutionary storytelling. There is nothing in operational science to suggest that any of these so-called evolutionary “remnants” are less than fully functional in their present form.

Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy.

Our Creator, Jesus Christ, took on the attributes of humanity (yet without sin), humbled Himself, and entered this sin-cursed earth (Philippians 2:5–8). He then died on the cross, took the punishment for our sin upon Himself, and rose gloriously from the dead. His was a true rescue mission. (For more, take a look at the best news you’ll ever read.)

If you believe in His life, sacrifice, and resurrection, then, for you, one thing does become vestigial . . . death."

Vestigial Organs: A Vanishing Argument

Vestigial organs are supposedly useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. However, this claim requires preconceived belief and an ignorance of the evidence.

answersingenesis.org

AnswersInGenesis.
Kweationist Klowns.
Not extra-Biblical- Shoehorned Biblical
LOL
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision really hurt. The creation science people should not be lumped in with ID proponents. We'll have to see if creationists can come back with their own arguments.

I can't agree with the creationist ideas. But, I'll say this for creationists: most of them are willing to debate the actual merits of their ideas with facts and logical conclusions, even when I disagree with them. That is in sharp contrast to the Darwinians on here, who immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks instead of debate.

No doubt that there are creationists who would only respond to a Darwinist argument with "you're a sinner!" or some such. But they have sense enough to stick with their prayer groups and not come onto a message forum on which logic and facts hold sway. Darwinists seem to think that "everyone says that everyone says so!" is an actual debate point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't agree with the creationist ideas. But, I'll say this for creationists: most of them are willing to debate the actual merits of their ideas with facts and logical conclusions, even when I disagree with them. That is in sharp contrast to the Darwinians on here, who immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks instead of debate.

No doubt that there are creationists who would only respond to a Darwinist argument with "you're a sinner!" or some such. But they have sense enough to stick with their prayer groups and not come onto a message forum on which logic and facts hold sway. Darwinists seem to think that "everyone says that everyone says so!" is an actual debate point.

You shameless, idiotic liar.


You have been buried in sound argument and evidence, as anyone can see for themselves by perusing your copious spam threads.

 

[james bond]

You shameless, idiotic liar.


You have been buried in sound argument and evidence, as anyone can see for themselves by perusing your copious spam threads.

There are no sound arguments from evolutionists. They're all looney tunes.

 

[Hollie]

ID is not my argument, but it has parts that I can support. Let's define it first versus your evolution.

"The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian random-chance explanation, because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: 1) irreducible complexity, 2) specified complexity, and 3) the anthropic principle.

One of the arguments for Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, is defined as “a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated incomplete eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time."

I support the above and it destroys evolution right off the bat. I don't think any evolutionists was able to explain. Chalk up another victory for me and the creationists?

Odd that you would think a victory for fear and superstition is the humiliation suffered by the ID'iot creationer loons in the Dover trial.

 

[Hollie]

There are no sound arguments from evolutionists. They're all looney tunes.

Sound arguments for the biological sciences are found in the facts and evidence.

What are your arguments for a flat earth?

 

[Hollie]

The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision really hurt. The creation science people should not be lumped in with ID proponents. We'll have to see if creationists can come back with their own arguments.

Edwards v. Aguillard was just one more humiliation for the religious extremists and their agenda of promoting fear and ignorance.

 

[james bond]

Odd that you would think a victory for fear and superstition is the humiliation suffered by the ID'iot creationer loons in the Dover trial.

I didn't say it was a victory in court. ID'ers were not prepared. Their arguments are logical arguments instead of science just the the ID'er... oops the evolutionists here. Remember, I mentioned the papers the atheist scientists wrote long ago and many times. It's not REAL SCIENCE. EVILution isn't REAL SCIENCE. It's logical arguments. Otherwise, we'd have something from like what I proposed as an evo experiment as HARD SCIENCE. Miller-Urey was FAILED SCIENCE!!!

ID'ers will have to show their science, as well. They'll have to demonstrate all of their principles and show it over time. What about two or more irreducible items joining together?

 

[Hollie]

I didn't say it was a victory in court. ID'ers were not prepared. Their arguments are logical arguments instead of science just the the ID'er... oops the evolutionists here. Remember, I mentioned the papers the atheist scientists wrote long ago and many times. It's not REAL SCIENCE. EVILution isn't REAL SCIENCE. It's logical arguments. Otherwise, we'd have something from like what I proposed as an evo experiment as HARD SCIENCE. Miller-Urey was FAILED SCIENCE!!!

ID'ers will have to show their science, as well. They'll have to demonstrate all of their principles and show it over time. What about two or more irreducible items joining together?

ID'iot creationers have consistently been humiliated in the courts. Attempting to rename Christianity with labels that just throw a burqa of phony descriptions on Christian fundamentalism have been a disaster for you folks.

 

[james bond]

ID'iot creationers have consistently been humiliated in the courts. Attempting to rename Christianity with labels that just throw a burqa of phony descriptions on Christian fundamentalism have been a disaster for you folks.

I have to admit that the creationists have bet their creationism on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in regards to court or justice system. This is the battleground for our young minds now. Where your evolutionary scientists have advantage there are all those papers your scientists wrote to support evolution and get continued funding. The best way to describe it is they wrote papers "assuming" evolution and not trying to demonstrate it or anything like that. They may have purposely left out anything to do with evolution. Thus, the creationists have to do the same thing. They have to play the same game. While they support intelligent design, they do not exactly discuss ID but provide evidence for it through their papers. I have to admit that in our justice system, we have to play the same game as evolutionists have. Your side is ahead, obviously, in that regard.

Here's an example of a paper topic for ID (even including a Richard Dawkins' quote lol):

" Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?"

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? | GotQuestions.org

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Hollie]

I have to admit that the creationists have bet their creationism on INTELLIGENT DESIGN in regards to court or justice system. This is the battleground for our young minds now. Where your evolutionary scientists have advantage there are all those papers your scientists wrote to support evolution and get continued funding. The best way to describe it is they wrote papers "assuming" evolution and not trying to demonstrate it or anything like that. They may have purposely left out anything to do with evolution. Thus, the creationists have to do the same thing. They have to play the same game. While they support intelligent design, they do not exactly discuss ID but provide evidence for it through their papers. I have to admit that in our justice system, we have to play the same game as evolutionists have. Your side is ahead, obviously, in that regard.

Here's an example of a paper topic for ID (even including a Richard Dawkins' quote lol):

" Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?"

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? | GotQuestions.org

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed?

www.gotquestions.org

Maybe present a lecture series at your madrassh.

 

[james bond]

Maybe present a lecture series at your madrassh.

It's a court battle or justice system battle in order to be allowed to teach creation science in public schools. Certainly, our children's minds and hearts are important enough to continue this battle.

It would be better to use the Bible, but then the creationists run into the problem of it being religion and not a science book. Evolution could be considered a religion, based on its non-scientific ideas of naturalism but it never was considered a religion. It's too bad that religion is considered to be a weaker subject than science in educational circles. I doubt we creationists can change this. Thus, we're going forward with intelligent design. Not the best situation for creationists imho.