More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[james bond]

There is no evidence presented by ID'iot creationers.

Intelligent people know that our creatures have excellent body designs and there is a lack of "transitional forms."

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday

If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the...

www.icr.org

 

[james bond]

It has been natural selection from the beginning. Evolution changes minute pieces very slowly and if its not suited,

There's no need for evolution and long time with natural selection. We can observe it happen. Also, creationists came up with it BEFORE Durwood Darwin.

"According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully expressed" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 18351 (emphasis added). Unlike Darwin, however, Blyth saw natural selection as a preserving factor rather than as "a potentially liberalizing" one. According to this under-appreciated naturalist, the conserving principle was "intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species." Atypical variations, to use Eiseley's words, led to the animal's "discovery and destruction."2

Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3

Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."

Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea

According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully...

www.icr.org

 

[Hollie]

There's no need for evolution and long time with natural selection. We can observe it happen. Also, creationists came up with it BEFORE Durwood Darwin.

"According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully expressed" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 18351 (emphasis added). Unlike Darwin, however, Blyth saw natural selection as a preserving factor rather than as "a potentially liberalizing" one. According to this under-appreciated naturalist, the conserving principle was "intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species." Atypical variations, to use Eiseley's words, led to the animal's "discovery and destruction."2

Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3

Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."

Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea

According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully...

www.icr.org

ICR. Another term for the Flat Earth Society.

 

[james bond]

ICR. Another term for the Flat Earth Society.

It shows natural selection is not part of evolution because it does not involve long time. The evos are WRONG once again.

 

[Hollie]

It shows natural selection is not part of evolution because it does not involve long time. The evos are WRONG once again.

''... does not involve long time...'.

You Flat Earthers are hilarious.

 

[james bond]

''... does not involve long time...'.

You Flat Earthers are hilarious.

The #1 Flat Earther here is YOU. Nobody surpasses Flattie Hollie lol.

 

[Hollie]

The #1 Flat Earther here is YOU. Nobody surpasses Flattie Hollie lol.

Lol. It's funny watching the Flat Earthers celebrate their Flat Earth'ness, lol.

 

[james bond]

Lol. It's funny watching the Flat Earthers celebrate their Flat Earth'ness, lol.

You are TOO CREEPY with your Flat Earthness. No one can discuss science with you here. You should only stay in the religion forum. Better yet, the rubber room.

 

[Hollie]

You are TOO CREEPY with your Flat Earthness. No one can discuss science with you here. You should only stay in the religion forum.

Embrace your Flat Earth'ness. Don't be just another pick and choose Flat Earther.

 

[abu afak]

There's no need for evolution and long time with natural selection. We can observe it happen. Also, creationists came up with it BEFORE Durwood Darwin.

Exactly.
We can observe evolution happening!!
No need to assign a god to it.
`

 

[james bond]

Exactly.
We can observe evolution happening!!
No need to assign a god to it.
`

abu afak: Soy un perdedor.

Sure. I already established that creationist Edward Blyth discovered natural selection before Darwin -- Edward Blyth and the Theory of Natural Selection - Nature.

 

[Hollie]

Intelligent people know that our creatures have excellent body designs and there is a lack of "transitional forms."

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday

If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the...

www.icr.org

Religious extremists know nothing of science which is why they deny transitional fossils.

 

[james bond]

Religious extremists know nothing of science which is why they deny transitional fossils.

As usual, you are WRONG and a loser. The creationists know the most science here over the evolutionists.

 

[Hollie]

As usual, you are WRONG and a loser. The creationists know the most science here over the evolutionists.

Creationerism is religious extremism, not science.

 

[abu afak]

So what is there evidence for, evolution or Darwin?

If there is evidence for Darwinism, please present it.

 

[itfitzme]

All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie. Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.

here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?

Evolution.

 

[abu afak]

As usual, you are WRONG and a loser. The creationists know the most science here over the evolutionists.

'Creation science' is an Oxymoron.

`

 

[james bond]

'Creation science' is an Oxymoron.

`

No, it isn't. Creation has already happened and stopped. The scientific evidence backs creation. However, evolution has come along and denies it.

 

[Hollie]

No, it isn't. Creation has already happened and stopped. The scientific evidence backs creation. However, evolution has come along and denies it.

No scientific evidence "backs" magic or supernaturalism.

 

[james bond]

No scientific evidence "backs" magic or supernaturalism.

You mean evolution. No scientific evidence backs evolution.

Just look at the mistakes in this our universe evolved article.

I can see someone like abu afak falling for it, but you, too lol?

The Evolution of the Universe