ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
No. No. No. Dave, you completely misunderstand what common descent with modification means (which, of course, means you completely disregarded my admonition that you carefully read the Theobald article, because if you had carefully read it, there's no way you could possibly have misconstrued it so thoroughly).
| Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:27) | | Eric ... you seem to misunderstand the Creationist position (it's OK, sometimes I misunderstand your position as well) ... I actually have no problem at all with "Common Descent with Modification" and I have said so here several times. You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on. |
No, there's no such evidence whatsoever of any such thing. What the evidence really shows (which you would know if you'd understood a fraction of what Theobald was saying) is that all life on earth can be traced back to one or a small number of very simple, unicellular or less, organisms. There's no ape "kind," or cat "kind" or human "kind." None of those "kinds" of organisms even existed until extremely recently (within the last few tens of millions of years, or slightly more than one percent of the age of the earth). For 75% of the time the earth has existed, there wasn't anything more complicated than a bacterium. If you could actually understand that the earth is six orders of magnitude older than your Bible tells you it is, you'd be wondering what God was doing with all that time while the earth was inhabited by nothing more complicated than a bacterium. What was he waiting for? Sweeps week?
In fact, if you really didn't have a problem with common descent with modification, there's no way you could believe in an earth 6,000 years old, because that's not remotely enough time for even your kinds to have diversified as much as you think they have.
| Quote | | And it is quite true that all the hundreds of variations within these kinds we see today are the result of Common Descent with Modification--modification meaning random mutation and controlled random mixing during reproduction. |
Not hundreds, Dave. Millions. Millions. You're making the same mistake all creationists make; they think the bulk of the organisms on this planet are the ones they can see. You know, bunnies, kittens, blue jays, that sort of thing. Go to the tree of life home page, Dave.
| Quote | | Where we differ is in the evolutionist idea that everything shares one common ancestor, with my most interest in this regard being on the Ape/Human question. |
And this is why you're a babe lost in the woods, Dave. This is where Creationism (whether of the Young Earth or the Old Earth or some subspecies of the Intelligent Design variety) get it completely wrong.
The evidence that all life on earth is descended from one or a small number of common ancestors, at least several billions of years ago, is what there's a mountain of evidence for. If you'd read Theobald closely, you'd get that. It's pretty clear you barely glanced at it.
| Quote | | We also disagree that random mutation and natural selection can produce anything like an eye where there was no eye before, or a flagellum, or what have you. No one has been successful in showing how new features like this could have evolved by random mutation. |
Dave, it's been shown dozens of times. In many cases we know exactly which mutations in exactly which locations resulted in exactly which changes. The fact that no one has actually witnessed it happen (even those Old Testament guys with their weirdly prolonged lifespans didn't live nearly long enough to see evolution happen) doesn't change that fact.
| Quote | | The changes are extremely minor changes. This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out. And nothing simpler can be formed as a precursor, because it only would get selected for if it is complete and working. |
Dave, if you'd even the most cursory reading anywhere other than at AiG, you'd see that this argument (irreducible complexity) has been completely blown out of the water. Behe couldn't make the argument stand, and Dembski couldn't make it stand. The argument has taken so many torpedoes below the waterline it looks more like Swiss cheese than an argument. I can't believe you would think you could come to a website inhabited by people who have read all the refutations of this argument and think you'd convince anyone.
So Dave, go back to Theobald, read it again, and see if you can figure out where you went off the rails. And then, after you've got that under your belt, let's try to come up with some evidence why the world is only 6,000 years old. Or, just admit that you cannot produce any. I've been waiting long enough.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
