Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

I find it amazing that there are so many evolutionists out there. I thought there would be more Creationist-Evolutionist clashes on this website but there's really more Evolutionist-Evolutionist clashes. Well i picked up an interesting piece of info I thought everyone might want to know. Did you know, that in Roger Morneau's book:A Trip Into the Supernatural, Morneau tells the story of his experiance in the Church of Satan, and, how he was told by one of the Satanic priests that Darwin was PERSONNALY contacted by Satan, where Satan told Darwin the "theory of Evolution". The priest also told him that Evolution was made up so that people would stray away from the story of creation. I am not making this up! This is (or was Roger Morneau passed away a couple of years ago) a real person and book and it really happened. If you want me to list the page where it says this, I will. Better yet, buy the book for yourself, if you're not convinced. Now, I am not here to flame Evolutionists, I'm just letting you know what I read in the book.Edited by Raphael, : Adding my signature and changing some punctuation.

---

I Know it's Easy to Deny the Truth.............Don't Be Decieved.

This is off topic.Please go to Proposed New Topics for further discussion of your 'revelation.' I'm sure many here will find it amusing.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Welcome to the fray So a church that is set up around intentional deceit is going to tell you the truth? And a book that presents this as a truth on such flimsy evidence is therefore trustworthy?But this is off-topic. Please go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Enjoy.ps - as you are new, some hints:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, we are the ones with the weight of scientific evidence on our side. Creationists don't really have anything but the Bible, so there's not all that much for them to argue about. Two creationists generally agree on hardly anything, but since there's no evidentiary basis for their beliefs, arguments between them don't generally go anywhere. No, but he is. People are convinced by evolution because of the vast, vast weight of scientific evidence in its favor, not because of "Satan."

Remember what we talked about in Chat, Raphael?You should put all that creationist filth down, and start picking up real science. Then, take that book, and start to analyse it with what you are learning about science, and the real world. Test it against facts that are shown to be right, and ask yourself:1) What evidence does the author have to support his/her position?
2) What logic has the author used to support his/her position?
3) If lacking 1 and 2, then it's no good.This guy, he can't prove to you what he's saying. It's all conjecture; there's no backing on reality. I hope you're reading through those sites we gave you, and I hope to see you in chat soon with your questions.JonEdited by Jon, : cleaned up

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

Actually, this forum gives the illusion of an evolutionist majority. I assure you that this is not the case at all. The creation side far outnumber the evolution side. The thing is most creationists usually just pull information out of their asses to make bullshit arguments with the 2 words they remembered from their high school biology text books. When they realize that most of us here are actually professionals and have worked for a number of years on the very subject we are discussing, they declare victory and run away.The evolution side, on the other hand, actually know what we are talking about and therefore are not afraid to stay and confront the bullshit arguments. If you stay here long enough, you will see what I mean.It goes like this. For ever 1 new member who believes in evolution, there are 10 new members who are creationists. But for every 1 creationist who actually stays a quasi-permanent member status, 10 people who believe in evolution stay. Did you know that Darwin was making out with Satan? I saw it once on The Simpsons.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Why are you replying to me? Are you implying that I am an evolutionist?

I hope this thread is the right place to ask my question. I'm debating with a creationist who likes to use the argument of irreducible complexity. One favourite application of this is that he is incredulous that bilateral symmetry could have evolved. I explained how you don't get a single new eye or leg evolving in an organism because of signalling molecules that are programmed to give "identical domains on left and right." I got my answer from TalkOrigins and though I'm not a scientist, I thought I had a passable understanding of it.Now I am being asked to explain the incredible complexity of the mechanism that implements the signalling molecules LOL. This is getting rather out of my depth. Is this the right place to ask for some help with understanding, or would another thread be more appropriate?

I saw a program on television showing just that. Scientist took
a simple celluar organism changed one gene and it changed instintly in the next generation. This creature had an primitive one valved heart and the scientist changed a gene and the next had a two valved heart.This proved that evolution can be quik. Personally I think we has humans have evolved to a point that we don't any extra arms. Evolution is all about changing to survive and we are the most succesful species on the planet. So don't think we are going to
grow wings any time soon. Try to Google that experiment I can't
remember the program it was on.

We are the most intelligent and our ability to make tools sure helps, but how do we rate success?We arent the biggest, strongest, or abundant. There are so many examples where animals can do it better and humans are still struggling to figure it out.In the event that we humans finally get around to destroying ourselves it is a safe bet that many animals will continue on. On certain terms we do seem to be successful, but watching the news it does appear tenuous.

Irreducible complexity is a bullshit term coined by creationists/IDists to deceive the gullible.For a starter, you could ask him what he means by irreducile complexity is, considering that everything we know now were one time too irreducibly complex for people to understand. The circulartory system was once irreducibly complex. Orbital mechanics was once irreducibly complex. The atom was once irreducibly complex.But you see, we do make progress. We do try to figure out the complex part of whatever the mechanism we are exploring and after we are done it is no longer irreducibly complex.By saying something is irreducibly complex and therefore it is an indication of design is like saying goddunit so we could never know what's behind the wall. I highly recommend people never to talk about things that are over their heads. After all, you don't see me talk on and on on geology topics. In fact, you don't see me post very often in geology threads.I'm not saying you shouldn't talk to him. I'm saying he's using the typical creationist tactic of demanding the impossible from his opponent and declare victory.I once attended a live debate between an astronomer and a creationist. The subject was about astronomical evidence in regard to the age of the universe. Since I have a background in this subject, it became apparent to me from the beginning that (1) the astronomer was not a very good debater even though he was a smart guy and (2) the creationist knew nothing about astronomy.The creationist attacked the astronomer by asking him question after question about geology. If I was the astronomer, I would have pointed out that the subject wasn't about geology. But you see, even though he knew all his stuff about astronomy, it didn't occur to him to point this out. Stage fright probably had something to do with it. After the creationist appeared to have torn the astronomer to pieces with geology questions, the crowd cheered for the creationist and it appeared to the layman that the astronomer was way over his head. It never occurred to anyone else but myself that the creationist appeared to win because he was taking the debate into territory he knew the astronomer wasn't familiar with.Don't take the bait. Talk about things you know well. Unfortunately, the regular Joe's vote weigh just as much as your vote and my vote. We can't afford to keep falling into the trap the creationist set up for us over and over. If they want to declare they have cosmic wisdom, let them. Eventually, it will show that their cosmic wisdom is nothing more than bullshit.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I agree with you totally, and thanks for your reply. I ignored the creationists on this particular forum for a while. Then I discovered TalkOrigins. I can understand much of what it says with a layman's background, so I thought I'd make use of that excellent resource to start refuting them. It actually hasn't been a problem up to now. Everything else that's been claimed as being "irreducibly complex," I've explained, and then I've said similar things to what you've said here about the very concept.My voice is alone there though, so I've got a reputation to protect. If I said, "that's not my subject," well nothing about evolution really is, I'm an English teacher LOL. I just had a decent, well rounded education.All I'd like here is for someone to be able to explain in layman's terms how these signaling molecules work, in a few sentences. Whenever I Google it, I get heavily scientific stuff, no simple definitions. I've been able to gather that they are parts of genes that activate when the organism is an embryo, but I could be wrong about that. It won't be wasted knowledge on me, I've valued everything I've learned about science in debating these guys.

Hello, Jas82, and welcome to EvC!I think you must be talking about the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis.
Just a moment...Interesting stuff....

Welcome to the fray jas82, Ah, not really. A gene is more than a small section of DNA. Replacing a gene in one organism with one from another does not tell us how fast the gene evolved, or how much change is needed to the gene.There are many cases where genes can be switched and still produce a viable organism, but this doesn't mean that evolution occurs that way. Not really. Evolution is about changes being produced randomly and then selected via natural selection so that those that are best able to survive and reproduce pass on more hereditary traits to their offspring. This results in change that is better adapted to the environment of the time, but that too is subject to change.There is no intent in evolution.Enjoyps - as you are new:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Suggest looking at developmental evolution, or evo-devo. The signalling molecules could be involved in the production of any protein or during cell duplication, as well as during development.I think we had a thread on evo-devo that mentioned some books.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.