Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

Sorry but there still does not seem to be any connection between the OPs points and the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

It really is all covered in "Alice in Wonderland".

quote:

---

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
'I don't much care where -' said Alice.
'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.
'- so long as I get SOMEWHERE,' Alice added as an explanation.
'Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'if you only walk long enough.”

---

quote:

---

“It’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.”

---

quote:

---

“If you don't know where you are going any road can take you there”

---

quote:

---

“Alice had begun to think that very few things indeed were really impossible.”

---

I'm sorry but your whole premise is what makes folk laugh.

You are still not understanding even Alice. You need to stop and study Alice first and then perhaps a discussion might be possible.

For example, is there any reason a heart might be needed? Or blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments?

Sorry Charley, you don't get the worm.

Reality says none of those are needed for life or evolution.

You still need to present some argument that has some relationship to either the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution before anyone can begin to take you seriously.

It's unfortunate that you seem to have no understanding of either reality or probability. Please go back to Message 9 and read the post over and over and over until you can understand the truth found there.

And, as was pointed out way back in Message 15, none of the things he listed (lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments) are necessary components for life.

Yet life exists that has none of those things. In addition, we can look at the life forms without those things and actually see evolution happening.

Reality trump probability every time.

Plus he still seems to think evolution involves direction or goal. Nether are true.

hbd writes: However, one of the references he provided in the OP, although it does not support his position and he took the cited data quite out of context, makes an interesting argument. He argues that evolution does not proceed based on contingency but rather convergence, which would be a form of directionality. Not directionality based on purpose or end-game reasoning, but based on functional necessity.

Natural selection would definitely impose a convergence of characteristics since all critters will face common selection pressures based on the local environment. moving quickly through water will favor a stream lined shape as an example.

Percy writes: Commercial fishing has an interesting example of selection. They only catch fish above a certain size, and so adult fish now grow smaller so as to escape capture.

That led directly to the concept of slot fish in sport fishing, where only a mid range of many species are kept and those larger or smaller than the standard keeper range for that species must be released.

And he still misses the point that ANY change, good, bad, neutral, is still evolution.

forexhr writes: The ToE on the other hand is just a naive opinion, that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again exactly because scientists made discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason.

You keep making really stupid statements and as with all Creationists never provide the evidence to support your absurdities.

Where is there any evidence that disproves evolution? There sure has not been any presented in this thread.

forexhr writes: Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources.

You have been given the answer many times by many people. The proper response is that since evolution does happen there are enough resources.

forexhr writes: This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk.

There you go making truly stupid assertion, writing checks no one will cash. The pre-existing bio-structures are existing living things; hardly junk.

The rest of you post is simply word salad.

That's a small part of it but wait, there's more.

The reality is at there is no single "environment" rather reality is that Environment is actually the sum of literally millions of unique environments and while the Environment changes often the individual environments behave independently, some changing, some remaining the same.

It is those individual environments that effect individual populations while major Environmental changes effect across populations.

Look at Yellowstone. There are things that do great in hot pools filled with minerals that would instantly kill things that live on the valley floor or in the mountains. The conditions in those pools though remains pretty constant for millions of years where the condition on the valley floor might and do change in mere generations.

It is these varied rates of local environmental changes that have varied effects on populations, many remaining pretty much the same for long periods, others change far more rapidly. Even the conditions in one valley may be different in another valley on the other side of a mountain range allowing the evolution of two different species of the same original critter.

And there is one other major point that is that the solution only needs to be just barely good enough to work. It is not just Cheetahs that hunt on the savannas.

forexhr writes: In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions.

How utterly stupid an assertion that is.

Is it possible that more than one species copes with a given environmental condition?

Golly gee, it seems it is. And we can even determine which species it is genetically.

Coyote writes: The "poofing" theory of creation fails all of the above.

Remember the poofing creation story is just one of the creation myths in the Bible and the newer of the two. The earlier creation myth has the not very bright god character making animals out of mud. Of course when it involves humans that is only half the fantasy. To make women the god character uses cloning but it's pretty clear the god character has no real knowledge of genetics so it uses a rib instead of more accessible DNA sources.

But that much older God was not very bright about most things.