manicsloth wrote:Stu, I love the fact that you completely miss the point.
Not quite.
You list a load of chromosome numbers but my point was this, evolution predicts things then we prove they are true. It predicted the chromosome fusion, did the bible? No it didn't. And don't bother looking for it now because it won't be a prediction. So my challenge to you Stu; Predict something using the bible and see if it is true. I also love that you call me behind the times when your info comes form the bible which is hundreds of years old.
Wait, what the...
So let me get this right.
Evolution predicted chromosomal fusion (CF) because apes and humans have a common ancestry.
As was my point (which you missed), creationists and intelligent design proponents (I'm both) predict a common design;
therefore it would be no surprise if apes and humans originally had the same number of chromosomes. Do you not understand this?
They are of a similar design layout.
Your argument is that evolution predicted CF therefore evolution is true -- the point you are missing is that CF is not incompatible within the design framework. It is not evidence
for evolution, if that evidence is just as easily compatible within design. As I pointed out comparative biology was used by creationists as proof of a common designer
before it was used as proof of common descent.
Furthermore, let me ask you this -- what if evolution predicts something and it is proven to be wrong? And what if this trend is repeated over and over and over again? What then. Is that therefore evidence
against evolution?
1. Evolution predicted that the cell would be nothing more than a "simple lump of protoplasm", not the complex, machine-guided bio-factory we now know to be true.
2. Evolution predicted many many intermediate fossils to account for the gradual evolution of life on earth.
- The exact opposite is true. Since Darwin's time, the fossil record has remained consistent in it's
lack of intermediate fossils. Darwin's dilemma remains as strong today as when Darwin first recognised this failing.
3. Evolution predicted that molecules from one organism were very different from another. Dogs were made from dog molecules and rats were made from rat molecules. They aren't.
4. During the 1960's it was predicted (according to Darwinain principles) that "the search for homologous genes is quite futile". Yeah they certainly got that one wrong, as it is now used as proof
for common descent; how's that for irony!!
5. The same regulatory genes are expressed in similar regions of insects and mammals (like the eye) -- evolution predicted the opposite.
6. Evolution predicted junk DNA.
- The exact opposite is proving to be true. Even (now finally acknowleged by evolutionists to have function in alternative splicing) intronic elements of DNA were predicted to be non-functional.
- So to are new functions continually being found for pseudogenes and repetitive DNA in terms of regulation and error correction.
7. Evolution predicted the "central dogma".
- We now know that epigenetics plays a critical role in the development of life -- we
are not solely the product of our DNA code.
This really is the nail in the coffin of evolution (as far as I'm concerned, these are of course my views).
We still do not know where the body plan for an organism lies!! It is not believed to reside within DNA. Now
how and
where, if we are the product of random mutation to the DNA sequence, did the body plan arise, that all-important blueprint of life.
Prediction, test, confirmation is how science works, not test, observe, fit with beliefs.
And yet that is exactly what Darwinism does!! Evolutionists are continually surprised by what they find and they massage the theory to fit the data.
I would go further and give you actual proof but my post would be moderated out of existence, it's taking 7 hours for the mods to approve my posts as it is. Stu come to a real forum where I can show how ridiculous you are or hide here behind mods who won't show how ungrounded religion is. I read the beginning of this article and you know why atheists leave fast from here? Not because you lot are clever or even right, because your mods see to it that we can't post. Hide behind your mods if you must, I'm off to join the real world.
This is really quite sad. Your intellect, your savvy is so astounding that no one could possibly stand toe-to-toe with you in a debate and hold their own.
No, it is you who are hiding behind the mods of Evidence for God, not me.
Come on over to
Uncommon Descent if you would like to debate, or PM me a link to this forum you refer to.
I was like you once, thought I had all the answers, now I just enjoy a healthy debate.
You claim god affects everything and yet we cannot measure this effect. Does that even sound rational to you?
When did I ever say that?
This will be my last post on this forum because if I respond again my post will absolutely get deleted, the mods don't want me to prove you guys wrong.
As I said,
you are hiding behind the mods. It's the ultimate fallacy -- my argument is so devastaing and true that it would'nt possibly be allowed to stand.
If you remain civil and don't attack the individual, and argue your case for evolution, I don't see why you would have your comments deleted.
Anyway, this isn't personal man; I just think neo-Darwinian evolution is entirely false, even a mockery; and has persisted through pressure groups and aggressive proponents, rather than on the merits of the theory itself. Once I started doing the research for myself, I was most disturbed at what people considered "evidence". Many folks were being sold half-truths and selective "facts", which I find unacceptable and immoral.
I have nothing against atheists (I have many atheist friends) or evolutionists. Debate is debate; once it's over we shake hands, say well done and walk away.
