“Why'd it bleep out *** it at the bud? Is it offensive? Its about damn flowers!”
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
“The first article is very wrong, “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about [things like] the origin of wings … . But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.” This quote seems quite mined. In, fact I'm contacting Graham Budd for clarification. It doesn't really show any people saying that the theory of evolution was incorrect.”
The point is it cannot sufficiently account for what we see. Otherwise there would be no need to call for a paradigm shift concerning evolution. Of course all of these scientists still believe in evolution. Their faith will never waiver because that’s all they can believe in. There are no other options, but the answers just aren’t there.
It would be interesting to know what was left out in that quote so I think it’s great that you contacted Graham Budd for clarification. How did wings originate? That is simply impossible to explain by evolution! The details get glossed over and it is just assumed that it happened. And even if they have a just so story that they claim “explains” it, if you can’t test it, what good is it? A hypothesis that cannot be tested is really useless because no one knows if it is accurate or not.
“I said could!!! If you can't acept that the scientific method could reach these answers, get off of a science forum.”
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here. You said the scientific method could reach what answers? What do you mean by “could”? That it can actually provide answers to these questions? OK, that’s your claim – that it CAN provide these answers. OK, so back up your claim with evidence please. Show me the experiment that has verified these various hypotheses.
For instance, please tell me how can the scientific method can show how flight evolved. And, if you can’t, then please don’t tell me to get off a science forum, sir. Science uses the scientific method to verify hypotheses. If it cannot verify or test a hypothesis, is it still science? I’m not going to accept just so stories about how someone thinks that it MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, IS THOUGHT TO HAVE, POSSIBLY, MAY HAVE, COULD POSSIBLY HAVE, etc. evolved. Kudos to them for having a good imagination, but we all know that a hypothesis is not evidence.
“I can refer you to this book:
A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries about the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth
Book by Joseph Kirschvink and Peter Douglas Ward
You may be able to find it in your local library. It should answer many of the questions above.”
Thanks. I live overseas and may not be able to find it.
"Here are my personal explanations for you:
The moon is cosmological, but here goes. Today, all evidence supports the impact theory. An object about the size of mars rammed into the north pole on earth, spewing signifigant debris into earth orbit. The debris either fell bzck to earth or coalescced into the moon."
Like I said, whenever there are problems to solve in cosmology, they conjure up an impacter that had to come in at just the right angle and just the right speed, etc. I wonder if you are familiar with the problems with the impact theory or do you just swallow it whole as if it is scientific gospel truth?
In an article by the Tokyo Institute of Technology in
Phys.org, 22 June 2020 entitled “Scientists provide new explanation for the strange asymmetry of the moon”,
the first sentence
reads as such: “The Earth‐moon system’s history remains mysterious.”
OK, two questions for you: 1) Are these scientists wrong and you are right?
2) Why is a “NEW” explanation needed if the impact theory has solved the problem?
You said: “DNA never is, and soft tissue rarely”
Wow! I think you are really behind the times here.
DNA never? OK, but Dr. Mary Schweitzer recently wrote this: “Our data support the hypothesis that calcified cartilage is preserved at the molecular level in this Mesozoic material, and suggest that
remnants of once-living chondrocytes, including their DNA, may preserve for millions of years.” Do you believe that DNA could be preserved for millions of years? I can understand your skepticism, but if you want to preserve those “Darwin years” you are forced to believe this nonsense – that this DNA was preserved for millions of years! It’s amazing what Darwinists are willing to believe in order to preserve their “theory”. (https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/4/815/5762999)
Soft tissue rarely? Again, you seem to be way behind the times:
In a new study entitled “
Biosignatures may reveal a wealth of new data locked inside old fossils”, I found this quote: “Working with Yale paleontologist
Derek Briggs and Yale chemist
Jason Crawford — both co-authors of the study — Wiemann analyzed the molecular composition of 113 animal fossils dating back 541 million years. It is the largest fossil data set to be analyzed by chemical means.
What they found was an abundance of soft tissues that fossilize into polymers. Recognizing these polymers and the soft tissues they represent MAY HELP researchers determine how various animals relate to each other in evolutionary history.”
First of all, please be sure to always notice the hedging words scientists put in their articles concerning evolution. MAY, COULD POSSIBLY, MIGHT, COULD HAVE, IS THOUGHT TO HAVE, etc. So basically most of what they tell us is unconfirmed – just guesses that may or may not be right. If we look at evolutionary history, you will see how much previous assumptions/hypotheses have been overturned, which leaves little assurance that today’s hypotheses will fare any better.
Secondly, notice that they found “an ABUNDANCE OF SOFT TISSUES that fossilize into polymers.” Now, they have evidence that soft tissues are ABUNDANT.
But you claim they are rare. Hmmm. Who to believe?
In their article, they show a picture of some of the fresh tissue they found and under it, there was this caption: “Microscopic image of decalcified YPM Allosaurus bone: pieces of chemically altered extracellular matrix with preserved bone cells. SOFT TISSUES FOSSILIZE COMMONLY, and they are stabilized through oxidative crosslinking of proteins, lipids, and sugars.”
You are right to expect soft tissues to be rare, but in reality, they are NOT rare. They are common! So better ramp up your faith a bit to be able to believe that soft tissues can be preserved for over 500 million years! Sheesh! And you try to make fun of me for believing in miracles!
“Competeing hypotheses are important to nail down exactly what happened. Birds are only a little bit harder than petradactyls, but why they had feathers is easy.”
Competing hypotheses are important to nail down exactly what happened? I see. But wait a minute! I guess that means the problem is not nailed down - which is exactly what I said. If they really had solved the issue, if they really knew what happened, there would be no need for multiple hypotheses. So the existence of competing hypotheses simply shows that they still do not have answers and they keep thinking up different possible scenarios to try to fill the holes in the current stories. How do we know that any of them are correct? Answer: If we cannot test them, we don’t. So real life example: when it comes to flight there is the arboreal story – tree down idea, the cursorial story – ground up idea, and the WAIR story – wing assisted incline running idea. What silliness!
“why they had feathers is easy.” NO, NO, NO, NO! We don’t need to know WHY they had/have feathers. The reasons for feathers are obvious. Why does a car have a steering wheel? The reasons are obvious, but it doesn’t mean the car evolved. What we need to know is HOW feathers could evolve one little Darwin step at a time. That is what cannot be explained – except with a just so story that no one can test.
If you can read this article and still come away believing that evolving feathers is easy, you get a failing grade in logic!
https://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism
Here is a brief description of some of the problems that must be solved if a feather is to come into existence by chance mutations over time:
Each feather is a masterpiece of engineering. The center shaft has barbs projecting from each side. Then, smaller barbules protrude from both sides of the barbs. From these barbules, microscopic barbicels project, like tiny hooklets. In some species there are more than a million barbicels in one feather.
The hooks of the barbicels fasten neatly onto the neighboring barbules, and this makes a tightly woven vane, as the entire feather is called. If the barbs get pulled apart, the bird can hook them back together merely by preening or running its beak through the feathers! You can do this yourself.
Consider the chances of this developing naturally. A feather would be of no help for flying until completed. It would be in the way. The design of a feather is truly one of complex precision and defies logic as to how it could have evolved from reptile scales by chance.
Difficult as it may seem, I have faith in your faith. I’m sure your faith is up to the challenge of believing that feathers evolved by accident. Why? Because for committed Darwinists, there is no other answer. Data doesn’t really matter. Whatever exists, you/they already “know” that it evolved, so you/they just accept it and believe it is possible, no matter what.
“How about insects? WHich one are you asking about? “
I don’t think I mentioned insects, but since you asked, sure. Please explain to me how a dragonfly with such a small brain could evolve the ability to fly in such amazing ways that it is the envy of jet fighters! Also, as far back as you go in the fossil record, they are dragonflies. It’s like they hardly evolved at all since they abruptly appeared in the fossil record 300 million years ago. I thought evolution improves things. In light of mutations and the environmental change the must have taken place, how could they stay the same for so many millions of years after just popping into existence?
“We have transitional fossils of archosaurs with skin flap impressions and other transitional petradactyloids. This one's named after Darwin!”
OK, a couple of questions about this assertion: How do you know they are transitional? Did anyone see them evolve from something else into what they are? Did anyone then see them evolve into something else? No, so this is just your hypothesis – your interpretation of the data - your way of explaining what you think happened through your evolutionary paradigm. There might be better explanations.
As for pterosaur evolution: “The pterosaurs were a group of fascinating flying reptiles. They were probably excellent flyers. Pterosaur evolution, however, is especially unconvincing. Numerous
ad hoc ghost lineages have to be invented to cover up the discrepancies between the pterosaur fossil record and the predictions of evolutionary theory.”
https://creation.com/review-of-the-pterosaurs-from-deep-time
As far as your article on the ribosome. It was on a website that will not ever consider the possibility of design, but anyway, did you notice the following words peppered throughout the article?
likely, suggest, widely believed, If peptide synthesis arises quickly, …., If reasonable, …., “their importance supports the notion that …”(interpretation), “Thus, consistent with the NOTION of a preceding RNA world, the structure of the PTC SEEMS TO HAVE evolved before the availability of proteins.” (How could it have evolved before the availability of proteins is not explained – it is just asserted!) “It is believed that….”, ad infinitum
It is full of assumptions, beliefs, interpretations, assertions, and hedging words (maybe, if, seems, is believed, etc.) Hmmm. I don’t think you really understand the difficulties of what they are talking about. There are 3 major stories about how the ribosome might possibly have evolved. Again, multiple ideas because they all have problems. The ribosome is irreducibly complex no matter how you approach it.
https://creation.com/ribosomes-and-design