Comments on: Another Gap Filled – More Evidence for Eye Evolution

By: The NESS » Creationism/Intelligent Design

The NESS » Creationism/Intelligent Design — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:42:38 +0000

[...] Another Gap Filled – More Evidence for Eye Evolution (Steven Novella, 12/07) [...]

By: Taylor C

Taylor C — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:36:26 +0000

I wouldnt use the bible to prove something to people who have no respect for it or beleif in it. Why would you say we are a transitional species?

By: weing

weing — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:24:49 +0000

Just look for evidence that supports the theory of evolution and remember that we are also a transitional species. To prove creation, just cite the relevant passages in the bible and you are done.

By: Taylor C

Taylor C — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:51:32 +0000

i need some feedback

By: Taylor C

Taylor C — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:18:18 +0000

alright thanks for your help. im writing two seperate papers, one trying to prove creation, and the other trying to prove evolution.

How is the concept of transitional flawed? Although species are said to change over millions of years, wouldnt we see at least SOME variation in fossils and what is alive now?

How do you explain infinite regress? The fact that every cell comes from a different cell is undeniable, where did the first cell come from?

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:03:20 +0000

Taylor,

All species, fossil and extant, are transitional species. They are transitional between other related species. Fossil species can also be transitional from ancestors to descendants. No species is not transitional in at least one of those two ways.

Your characterization is based upon a flawed concept of transitional and is factually wrong. The fossil evidence for change over time is overwhelming – not just bits and pieces.

But of course it is incomplete – it will always be incomplete. All scientific theories are incomplete.

And evolution does not entail life “magically putting itself together” – that is a straw man. Evolution involves accumulating changes non-randomly through variation and natural selection (predominantly). Not just random chance.

Seriously – I suggest you read some primary sources on evolution. If all you read is creationist propaganda you will have a very distorted view of what scientists actually believe and will waste your time attacking straw men and looking foolish.

By: Taylor C

Taylor C — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:37:35 +0000

Rose – There is infact a lack of transitional fossils, every set of “transitional fossils” have been incomplete. These archeologists that claim to have found them only pick out bits and pieces here and there. Only about one fossil in every thousand.

Aaron – it is far less likely for everything to magicly put itself together to become functional and complex than for us to be created. The chances of simple bacteria building itself over millions of years is less likely to happen than to come up with a dictionary after throwing letters at the ground.

By: CodeSculptor

CodeSculptor — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:27:42 +0000

The “assumption” that life evolved from nothing has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That position is not included in any legitimately scientific account of the theory of evolution.

But it “feels” kinda silly, doesn’t it? You are using intuition there. The problem is, the concept that an invisible, genocidal entity created everything from nothing has got to feel just a little sillier, doesn’t it?

Creationists are “bashed” because their arguments are illogical whenever they aren’t outright illegitimate.

Evolution makes predictions, and those predictions have proven correct over the last hundred or so years. Some interpretations have been made which have proved wrong, but it was the work of other evolutionist that have proved them wrong.

Evolution isn’t about proving things that are new, it’s about proving things that are old.

By: e.thunder

e.thunder — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:00:57 +0000

You can call things like “retreat”, “god of the gaps cycle” and “strategic maneuvers” but there is just the assumption that life evolved from nothing. And there are a lot of wrong assumptions in the path of the current evolution theory, that has been proven.
The theory is actually one big cap.

Anyway, where is this topic all about? Proving something new (where is it)? Or bashing creationists?

By: Larry Coon

Larry Coon — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:31:39 +0000

Oh yeah?