Thread Name Not Available

Yeah, what if?

I think you have some arguing to do before I accept the following as an invitation to do anything at all:

The entire thread leading up to Bolder-dash's post is available for your review.

Here is one thing we can agree on. "[A]n intelligent designer wouldn't do that" is a poor argument.In principle, the argument that some creatioon is a life form only an intelligent designer could have make is an infinitely easier argument to make. The theory of evolution can be used to make predictions about things that should never show up, while an omnipotent, intelligent, and unfathomable God could have created anything.But in practice the latter argument never works either. Those things that cannot be the result of common descent and the theory of evolution just never occur. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's not at all what I said. So far all of the irreducible complexity and complex specified information arguments I've heard of are utter failures.What I said was that if intelligent design was correct, then there might exist living structures that both ID and evolution theorists would agree cannot be evolved. On the other hand there are no such creations that we can say an intelligent designer could not or would not poof into existence.So in principle, ID proponents have a possible task using arguments of this type, while evolution proponents do not. That's all I have said. In practice, ID proponents cannot achieve success despite their lower burden.And of course my comment applies only to this one particular line of argument. Let's be real about this. First, there is no number of fossils that would ever convince you that life evolved. Every found fossil simply creates two new gaps for you to complain about. Secondly, we have all the fossils, aging, and genetic information to establish common descent to a high degree of certainty. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you can demonstrate the above to be correct, then you'll have proven common descent to be a pipe dream. Why don't you back up this assertion?

Not this again. Please... If you don't want to discuss mutations then you aren't interested in discussing the theory of evolution. New variation is a central part of the theory, and mutations are the important source of variation. Herr Ober, zhalen bitte!

As best as I can tell from doing a few internet searches, it seems to be the case that the fossil record is pretty sparse when it comes to the evolution of bats. Mindspawn has freely admitted his joy in not having to face such evidence. It's not that he has any contrary evidence, or that he can identify any reason why there ought to be more fossil evidence. He just does not have to spin and deny.

It's not a choice between the two. Both occur, but only mutation introduces new variation. Variations don't pop up as needed, and don't propagate instantaneously. But even a rare mutation that does provide an advantage to individuals in propagating will be selected for. And after all no one claims that evolution is a rapid process.I hope you don't mind my bowing out of this discussion. It initially appeared that you had a new take on reasons for not accepting evolution. But you're just dusting off the same old PRATTS. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps some evidence gathered via time machine showing all of the ancestors and offspring of each skull? Because anything requiring the slightest amount of inference can be denied. And evolution of humans from non-human primates must be denied at all costs.Or maybe not even then. Despite the fact that mutations associated with phenotypic variations have been witnessed and identified, and that the fact that we have actually measured mutation rates in humans, mindspawn still won't concede that they happen and contribute to variation.

Yikes, that wouldn't leave much of my message to consider.Let me try something a bit more snark free. The problem I see with mindspawn's views on what constitutes evidence (and by evidence I certainly don't mean proof) rule out everything that can possibly be found because he adopts the creationist approach of requiring only direct direct evidence that does constitute absolute proof such that the evidence by itself would compel a fundamentalist to join you on the road to hell.In what other sense would ordering transistional or allegedly transitional fossils using dating and morphology not constitute any evidence at all for evolution.In what sense is there no evidence at all that human beings possess mutations that are not a part of their parents genome, and thus cannot constitute mere rare combinations of alleles. And in what sense is there no evidence at all that mutations are connected with phenotype variation. Only is there no evidence in the sense that there the any imagined possible alternative explanation, however implausible, renders a fact not evidence. Only with a mindset that represents a rejection for lacking a certainty that is not applied to anything else. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.