Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[cbirch2]

Sorry, i was mistaken,i do see where Doc pointed it out.

But a few questions out of that article i am intersted in asking.

1. Where did the information necessary for life come from?

2. complex information-rich patterns in biological systems, Where did they originate?

This guy disagrees with you on question four.

4. the biology journal BioEssays published a special issue on “molecular machines.” In the introductory essay to that issue, Adam Wilkins, the editor of BioEssays, remarked, “The articles included in this issue demonstrate some striking parallels between artifactual and biological/molecular machines. In the first place, molecular machines, like man-made machines, perform highly specific functions. Second, the macromolecular machine complexes feature multiple parts that interact in distinct and precise ways, with defined inputs and outputs. Third, many of these machines have parts that can be used in other molecular machines (at least, with slight modification), comparable to the interchangeable parts of artificial machines. Finally, and not least, they have the cardinal attribute of machines: they all convert energy into some form of ‘work’.”


How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures?

Question

5. Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity raises acute difficulties for Darwinism. Irreducible complexity is a “package-deal” feature of many biological systems. Package deals are all-or-nothing deals. You can have the whole package or you can have none of it, but you can’t pick and choose pieces of it. In biology, especially at the molecular level, there exist molecular machines (see last question) that cannot be simplified without losing the machine’s function. In other words, take away parts and you can’t recover the machine’s function. One such irreducibly complex molecular machine that has become the mascot of the intelligent design movement is the bacterial flagellum. This is a tiny motor-driven propeller on the backs of certain bacteria. It is a marvel of nano-engineering, spinning at tens of thousands of rpm. Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls it “the most efficient machine in the universe.” It is irreducibly complex.

How do evolutionary theorists propose to account for such systems?

7. In regular engineering one begins with a plan to construct a machine that serves a given function and then builds the machine according to plan. In reverse engineering, by contrast, one starts with a finished machine and tries to determine what its purpose is and how it was constructed. Scott Minnich, a University of Idaho molecular biologist and prominent proponent of intelligent design, will often remark in his public lectures that the only way for biologists to understand the workings of the cell is to approach its various systems as a reverse engineer. Thus the molecular biologist may take a functioning system in the cell, perturb it, see how the cell behaves differently to infer the system’s function. Alternatively, the molecular biologist may interfere at various points in the system’s self-assembly to determine how the system is constructed. In all such cases, the molecular biologist acts as an engineer making intelligent interventions and not as a gambler throwing dice. If we need the science of engineering to understand biological systems.

Why is this not evidence of design ?

1. Havent we been over this? The basic unit of information in DNA is a nitrogeneous base. These are very simple organic molecules. There is no mystery of how they could form.

2. Again, information rich means nothing. Just because theyre information rich right now does not mean they always were.

4. None of those similarities mean anything. He just defined a machine in like 4 different ways. That doesnt mean anything in terms of how they originated or how they function. Organelles within a cell operate completely differently than machines we create. If you actually understood the structure of organelles you wouldnt ask about their origin. They are simple lipid membranes. How dont you get that?

5. The entire concept of irreducible complexity is the result of one giant fallacy. Like i said, just because your car cant run without a transmission doesnt mean the I.C.E isnt a result of a the steam engine. Look at the evolution of the circulatory system. Our circulatory system would not work as is without a 4 chambered heart. If you suddenly lost your right ventricle, you would die. That doesnt mean amphibians dont have 3 chambers and fish dont have two. The whole argument is based on a very obvious logical fallacy. Not surprising, since creationists love those.

7. First of all, you totally ignored my statement about RNA synthesis. Second, the number of experiments we can do in a lab is still minuscule compared to the number of chemical reactions that could take place in just a second across the surface of the earth. Our inability to create life in a petri dish isnt evidence for or against evolution (or intelligent design). Its just evidence of our inability to control that number of molecules that precisely. The chances of a simple prokaryotic cell (no organelles) being formed spontaneously somewhere in the oceans of primitive earth within the last 4 billion years are a lot greater than us creating it in a petri dish in 50.

So in other words, by you not answering any of the questions you're avoiding the accurate answer,which is Design.

That is disingenuous,but not surprising.

That my firends is why their theory is so wrong, they rule out obvious evidence of intelligence because if they admit it, they can't rule out God the creator which is where all life and the complexity of life originated. That is nothing more than defending your religion on their part.

Lol your delusional. I numbered my responses according to your questions, but apparently you still cant follow. Is there a simpler way you would like these organized?

1. Q: Where did the information necessary for life come from?
A: Spontaneously formed nitrogenous bases

2. Q: Where did "complex information rich patterns" in nature originate?
A: Again, from slightly less complex "patterns"

4. Q: Are biological machines similar to machines we create?
A: No. They are similar in the sense that they fit the definition of "machine" in the most general sense, but they share no similarity other than that. They function on totally different principles. Either way, this question is pointless.

5. Q: How do biologists account for irreducible complexity?
A: This is a made up and totally rejected term. It does not exist. Again, it results from faulty logic. Its the same type of logic that leads IDiots to think a fish has to give birth to a mammal for evolution to be right. Think about it like this. Evolution would claim early mammals only had the lower brain. That doesnt mean you should be able to remove the entire upper brain from modern mammals and they should be fine. It doesnt work like that, thats IDiot logic.

7. Q: Why do we have to "reverse engineer" biological parts.
A: We dont have to in some cases (see, RNA, DNA, amino acid, protein, lipids, sugars). Just because we cannot make a cell from scratch doesnt mean life must have been intelligently designed. There is no evidence for that. Your taking a lack of evidence for one thing as evidence for another. I know your idiot little mind probably works in very simplistic black and white terms, but the world doesnt.

Tell me again how im dancing around your questions. Your so thick is ridiculous. Why does the entire scientific community discredit the hypothesis of irreducible complexity? It must just be one giant conspiracy huh? You know, it wouldnt surprise me at all if you thought that. Thats so typical of a stupid person to claim, in the face of all evidence, that they arent wrong, everyone else is just out to get them. God i hate how conservatives always think theyre being persecuted. Its their own little form of martyrdom, they think theyre holier because of it. Its pathetic.

 

[cbirch2]

Dude why dont you post something from your own knowledge, or at least a summarized version of something you find on the internet. You keep posting exact copy pasta, essentially proving that you dont know enough to make a coherent argument using your own words and based upon your own knowledge.

Im not going to read through your wall of text that wont even make a coherent or relevant point in the first place.

Summarize what you read and post references at the bottom or as you go. Thats how its done friend. Prove to me you know SOMETHING.

I did.

Only about 46% of the time.

 

[Woyzeck]

Wow, an excuse for everything.

But that doesn't change the fact..none of what you propose has been proven. Making guesses on what you think you're seeing is not proof, nor is it evidence.

Stop acting like the retard in class and go read a book that doesn't suck the cock of Jesus for once. You clearly don't know any basic facts about biology, and can't even come up with a convincing reason or argument or anything on why evolution is false.

But I'm not worried. You'll run from the thread with your tail between your legs again for who knows how many times now, and never respond to the evidence I specifically link to you.

What in your mind do you think these links prove ?

It's the evidence for various aspects of evolution you and Allie kept clamoring for. Some of it also serves as a rebuttal to your various claims concerning evolution, such as information only ever being "weeded out" and never added into an organism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stop acting like the retard in class and go read a book that doesn't suck the cock of Jesus for once. You clearly don't know any basic facts about biology, and can't even come up with a convincing reason or argument or anything on why evolution is false.

But I'm not worried. You'll run from the thread with your tail between your legs again for who knows how many times now, and never respond to the evidence I specifically link to you.

What in your mind do you think these links prove ?

It's the evidence for various aspects of evolution you and Allie kept clamoring for. Some of it also serves as a rebuttal to your various claims concerning evolution, such as information only ever being "weeded out" and never added into an organism.

Are you not listening to us both,we believe in evolution within a species but not Macro-evolution.

I have shown you where scientist on your side admit there are no documented observations of Macro-evolution.

I have looked at what you posted and it's not Macro-evolution. You can call it Micro-evolution or Micro- adaptations, but not Macro.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dude why dont you post something from your own knowledge, or at least a summarized version of something you find on the internet. You keep posting exact copy pasta, essentially proving that you dont know enough to make a coherent argument using your own words and based upon your own knowledge.

Im not going to read through your wall of text that wont even make a coherent or relevant point in the first place.

Summarize what you read and post references at the bottom or as you go. Thats how its done friend. Prove to me you know SOMETHING.

I did.

Only about 46% of the time.

I am trying to reason with you and the others. And i thnk if you don't really stop and take in the evidence you can't see the design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Can I have a link that shows Darwin said his entire life's work was absurd?



Please not a link to an evangelical site that says he said it with no proof.

His or her point was the complexity of the human eye. Let's look at that.

Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision.

In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

"While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."

If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that:

"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations." (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296).

Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over a thousand different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.

Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.

Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.

Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 -- for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a "virtual certainty" compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that's the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a "room" full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our "room" full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!

Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, more over, that "natural selection" makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution) Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said:

"The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete."

I will leave it to the reader to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

Look at the eye up close,it is a thing of beauty,no way did this happen by random mutations.

Check out these pictures.

20 Beautiful Macro Photos of the Human Eye | inspirationfeed.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Can unintelligent matter produce intelligence ?

Can non-living matter become living matter ?

Can natural selection produce intelligence ?

 

[Woyzeck]

What in your mind do you think these links prove ?

It's the evidence for various aspects of evolution you and Allie kept clamoring for. Some of it also serves as a rebuttal to your various claims concerning evolution, such as information only ever being "weeded out" and never added into an organism.

Are you not listening to us both,we believe in evolution within a species but not Macro-evolution.

I have shown you where scientist on your side admit there are no documented observations of Macro-evolution.

I have looked at what you posted and it's not Macro-evolution. You can call it Micro-evolution or Micro- adaptations, but not Macro.

There's other evidence indicating macro-evolution besides observations y'know. And I have in fact posted such evidence.

I'm still not sure why you say you accept speciation, but not macro-evolution.

 

[Woyzeck]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Could we have a source? Because Darwin says otherwise in The Origin of Species.

Eyes are a particularly fascinating point of evolution. They're hardly proof for the existence of an intelligent designer any more than your own left arm is. Now what Darwin did to rebut this argument about eyes is particularly interesting. He surveyed existing species with functional and useful eyes and tried to see if he could string them into a hypothetical sequence that would produce the complex eyes we have today. And he did it.

You can start with simple eyespots that detect light in flatworms. From there, you can see how it would fold in, making a cup that protects this eyespot, and better localize the light source. Limpets have these sort of eyes. In chambered nautilus, you see the cup's opening narrowing which produces an improved image. In ragworms, the cup is covered by a transparent cover, in abalones, fluid in the eye forms a lens to help focus light. In mammals, nearby muscles help with focus and with moving the lens. And so on and so forth until you reach the current eye we ourselves have.

If that wasn't proof, there's a pair of Swedish scientists by the names of Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger who made a mathematical model concerning the evolution of eyes, similar to the path I just described. Starting with the basic eyespot, they allow the tissues to deform themselves randomly, limiting the change to about 1% of size or thickness at every step. To imitate natural selection, the model only accepted the mutations that would benefit the organism, as any that didn't would allow that organism to die off.

Well, the model worked, much like the progression that Darwin described. It went through 1,829 tiny adaptive steps. And how long did it take? Nilsson and Pelger calculated it, and it would take, using conservative numbers, less than 400,000 years. That's more than enough time for an eye to evolve in organisms, especially considering the earliest eyes started to arise more than 550 million years ago.

So, how is this proof of an intelligent designer again?

 

[Woyzeck]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

By the way, in order to further prove the blatant inaccuracy of this statement about Darwin and eyes, here's the actual section of The Origin of Species where he talks about eyes. It starts a paragraph above where the link takes you.

Similarly to how this poster above replies to someone else with the suggestion of reading Darwin's work, so would I suggest this to the poster I have quoted just now.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Can I have a link that shows Darwin said his entire life's work was absurd?



Please not a link to an evangelical site that says he said it with no proof.

I'm not here to do your research... Buy the works of Charles Darwin and read them... He starts off his theoretical conclusions with that statement about the human eye... Its how he introduces the theory..

Get off this stupid messageboard and read a book... start there..

My research? No it's your job to prove what you say.

I've seen works that show Darwin saying and doing the exact opposite of what you say, so I'm going to need proof that he said the crazy stuff you claim.

Since you can't, I'll dismiss it as crazy, which is what I figured the first time you said it I just figured I'd give you a chance to prove what you said.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I've been very impressed by cbirch throughout this thread, you can tell he's very well versed on biology and other sciences. He can so quickly and easily squash all the evolution denier arguments that YWC has provided by using science.


Well done all around sir.

 

[konradv]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Your statement is absurd. There's plenty of evidence that the eye did evolve.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's the evidence for various aspects of evolution you and Allie kept clamoring for. Some of it also serves as a rebuttal to your various claims concerning evolution, such as information only ever being "weeded out" and never added into an organism.

Are you not listening to us both,we believe in evolution within a species but not Macro-evolution.

I have shown you where scientist on your side admit there are no documented observations of Macro-evolution.

I have looked at what you posted and it's not Macro-evolution. You can call it Micro-evolution or Micro- adaptations, but not Macro.

There's other evidence indicating macro-evolution besides observations y'know. And I have in fact posted such evidence.

I'm still not sure why you say you accept speciation, but not macro-evolution.

No i don't know of any and nor does any scienctist.

Any documentation covered it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Could we have a source? Because Darwin says otherwise in The Origin of Species.

Eyes are a particularly fascinating point of evolution. They're hardly proof for the existence of an intelligent designer any more than your own left arm is. Now what Darwin did to rebut this argument about eyes is particularly interesting. He surveyed existing species with functional and useful eyes and tried to see if he could string them into a hypothetical sequence that would produce the complex eyes we have today. And he did it.

You can start with simple eyespots that detect light in flatworms. From there, you can see how it would fold in, making a cup that protects this eyespot, and better localize the light source. Limpets have these sort of eyes. In chambered nautilus, you see the cup's opening narrowing which produces an improved image. In ragworms, the cup is covered by a transparent cover, in abalones, fluid in the eye forms a lens to help focus light. In mammals, nearby muscles help with focus and with moving the lens. And so on and so forth until you reach the current eye we ourselves have.

If that wasn't proof, there's a pair of Swedish scientists by the names of Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger who made a mathematical model concerning the evolution of eyes, similar to the path I just described. Starting with the basic eyespot, they allow the tissues to deform themselves randomly, limiting the change to about 1% of size or thickness at every step. To imitate natural selection, the model only accepted the mutations that would benefit the organism, as any that didn't would allow that organism to die off.

Well, the model worked, much like the progression that Darwin described. It went through 1,829 tiny adaptive steps. And how long did it take? Nilsson and Pelger calculated it, and it would take, using conservative numbers, less than 400,000 years. That's more than enough time for an eye to evolve in organisms, especially considering the earliest eyes started to arise more than 550 million years ago.

So, how is this proof of an intelligent designer again?

Do you know who said this ?

"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

 

[Youwerecreated]

Can I have a link that shows Darwin said his entire life's work was absurd?



Please not a link to an evangelical site that says he said it with no proof.

I'm not here to do your research... Buy the works of Charles Darwin and read them... He starts off his theoretical conclusions with that statement about the human eye... Its how he introduces the theory..

Get off this stupid messageboard and read a book... start there..

My research? No it's your job to prove what you say.

I've seen works that show Darwin saying and doing the exact opposite of what you say, so I'm going to need proof that he said the crazy stuff you claim.

Since you can't, I'll dismiss it as crazy, which is what I figured the first time you said it I just figured I'd give you a chance to prove what you said.

So what, he is just one of many that created this rediculous theory. Just some of them finely admit how absurd it is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've been very impressed by cbirch throughout this thread, you can tell he's very well versed on biology and other sciences. He can so quickly and easily squash all the evolution denier arguments that YWC has provided by using science.


Well done all around sir.

Dream on,by the way you really don't know enough about biology to understand that cbirch only answered the questions with a theory. He didn't give any explanation that has been proven or ever been obsered which is usually the case with evolutionist.

Did he offer proof that complex structures evolved from less complex structures ? no he only offered an explanation according to theory. Nothing that can be proven.

Cbirch might know the theory well but he can't prove anything he said.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not here to do your research... Buy the works of Charles Darwin and read them... He starts off his theoretical conclusions with that statement about the human eye... Its how he introduces the theory..

Get off this stupid messageboard and read a book... start there..

My research? No it's your job to prove what you say.

I've seen works that show Darwin saying and doing the exact opposite of what you say, so I'm going to need proof that he said the crazy stuff you claim.

Since you can't, I'll dismiss it as crazy, which is what I figured the first time you said it I just figured I'd give you a chance to prove what you said.

So what, he is just one of many that created this rediculous theory. Just some of them finely admit how absurd it is.

No, 1% of fundamentalist religion types who call themselves scientists deny evolution. Normally the main reason they do is money and fame, and secondary to that is religion.

99% of biologists don't deny evolution, you'll always have a crazy fringe of people no matter the subject.

So what wasn't the proper reply, the proper reply would be giving me evidence that Darwin said his life's work was absurd, otherwise the person who said he said that is just a flat out liar.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Your statement is absurd. There's plenty of evidence that the eye did evolve.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, Who said this ?


"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

It is totally absurd to believe the eye didn't have a designer.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I've been very impressed by cbirch throughout this thread, you can tell he's very well versed on biology and other sciences. He can so quickly and easily squash all the evolution denier arguments that YWC has provided by using science.


Well done all around sir.

Dream on,by the way you really don't know enough about biology to understand that cbirch only answered the questions with a theory. He didn't give any explanation that has been proven or ever been obsered which is usually the case with evolutionist.

Did he offer proof that complex structures evolved from less complex structures ? no he only offered an explanation according to theory. Nothing that can be proven.

Cbirch might know the theory well but he can't prove anything he said.

He can't drive over to your house and give observational evidence of what he's saying, which even if he did do that you'd still claim your eyes were wrong and not change your opinion.

He's provided proof throughout this thread, for people who's minds aren't closed to new information, sadly yours is.