2
Ultimately Real
December 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I can’t claim to be a scientist or a philospher but as a lay person interested in ID, it is obivious to even me the two instances you refer to are not the leaps vjtorley is referring to. Both Thalidomide and Rubella, upon reading your links, are destructive changes, one by a man-made drug and the other by a virus. The leaps I believe vjtorley is referring to are structures that move from less complex to more complex with the “instant” addition of multiple parts.
One big mystery I always ponder is the supposed evolutionary move of a land mammal to an ocean dwelling animal. I have heard arguments that these creatures at one point developed fully functional land breathing capability at the same time they had fully functional water breathing capability, so the transition was easy and the air breathing apparatus began to evolve away. (My bold)
Here is what I can’t wrap my head around from an evolutionary standpoint. How many generations of my kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on and so forth would have to spend everyday in the ocean before they would develop the ability to remain in the ocean full time. My gut says it would never happen. But let’s just ask another question, what percentage of the 7 billion humans alive on the planet are born with fully functional fins, aqua lungs or digestive systems capable of living on eating fish alone? Well, other than some sensational stories in a National Enquirer-type publication, I am inclined to believe that no humans are born with any of these fully functional parts. I have limited knowledge of recessive genes but even if my great, great grandkid to the nth power did pop out with a fully developed mutations for water life, if it was the wrong type of gene or genes, wouldn’t it be gone with the next generation?
Here is another thing I think is amazing: All the amazing human pieces and parts FULLY develop in the womb. The lungs, the eyes, the digestive system, the fingers, etc. all assemble into fully developed structures prior to being called into use!! If the eye is missing one component, the child is either blind or their vision is severely restricted. The gestational assembly of a human with functionally structures should give us all pause.
The final scenario I play out in my mind is the Provine statement that a dog could turn into an elephant with enough time. I am still left wondering what the intermediate mutations between a dogs nose and fully functioning trunk with muscular structures capable of grasping peanuts like a hand would look like. Even if a dog was born with a bump on his noise, how would that bump get larger and longer over successive generations and develop the musculature we see in an elephant. Simply preposterous!!!!
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/will-this-do-professor-moran/
------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of tard in that post is what's preposterous. I'm glad he doesn't claim to be a scientist. In the emboldened paragraph he appears to be talking about cetaceans, but he apparently doesn't know that cetaceans don't breathe water and never did. If he's not talking about cetaceans, then what the fuck is he talking about?
Oh, and it's interesting to hear that unborn babies have "fully developed structures prior to being called into use". Doctors should announce that all of the growth and changes that occur after birth are a figment of our imaginations.
I wonder what he thinks of "structures" that 'develop' (or can 'develop') in the womb that will never be "called into use", like an extra head, extra limbs, nipples on a man, etc.? And why is it that godbots NEVER give their chosen god credit for all of the horrible things that 'develop' in many babies while they're in the womb, like diseases, disfigurement, disabilities, and death?
I also wonder if he would change his mind about ID and evolution if all human babies were to start developing eyes only after they're born? Apparently he thinks that development beginning at conception proves ID, and that there's something miraculous about humans having things like eyes at birth.
And what about premature babies?
And what about animals that 'develop' inside an eggshell (or egg membrane), not in a "womb"?
And what about Lepidopterans, that not only don't "FULLY develop" in a womb, but don't produce a fully developed adult straight from the fertilized egg? One minute the IDiots claim that multiple stages of development after 'birth' (metamorphosis) proves ID and the next minute an IDiot claims that so-called 'full' development in the womb proves ID. Which is it?
Ultimately Real
December 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I can’t claim to be a scientist or a philospher but as a lay person interested in ID, it is obivious to even me the two instances you refer to are not the leaps vjtorley is referring to. Both Thalidomide and Rubella, upon reading your links, are destructive changes, one by a man-made drug and the other by a virus. The leaps I believe vjtorley is referring to are structures that move from less complex to more complex with the “instant” addition of multiple parts.
One big mystery I always ponder is the supposed evolutionary move of a land mammal to an ocean dwelling animal. I have heard arguments that these creatures at one point developed fully functional land breathing capability at the same time they had fully functional water breathing capability, so the transition was easy and the air breathing apparatus began to evolve away. (My bold)
Here is what I can’t wrap my head around from an evolutionary standpoint. How many generations of my kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on and so forth would have to spend everyday in the ocean before they would develop the ability to remain in the ocean full time. My gut says it would never happen. But let’s just ask another question, what percentage of the 7 billion humans alive on the planet are born with fully functional fins, aqua lungs or digestive systems capable of living on eating fish alone? Well, other than some sensational stories in a National Enquirer-type publication, I am inclined to believe that no humans are born with any of these fully functional parts. I have limited knowledge of recessive genes but even if my great, great grandkid to the nth power did pop out with a fully developed mutations for water life, if it was the wrong type of gene or genes, wouldn’t it be gone with the next generation?
Here is another thing I think is amazing: All the amazing human pieces and parts FULLY develop in the womb. The lungs, the eyes, the digestive system, the fingers, etc. all assemble into fully developed structures prior to being called into use!! If the eye is missing one component, the child is either blind or their vision is severely restricted. The gestational assembly of a human with functionally structures should give us all pause.
The final scenario I play out in my mind is the Provine statement that a dog could turn into an elephant with enough time. I am still left wondering what the intermediate mutations between a dogs nose and fully functioning trunk with muscular structures capable of grasping peanuts like a hand would look like. Even if a dog was born with a bump on his noise, how would that bump get larger and longer over successive generations and develop the musculature we see in an elephant. Simply preposterous!!!!
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/will-this-do-professor-moran/
------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of tard in that post is what's preposterous. I'm glad he doesn't claim to be a scientist. In the emboldened paragraph he appears to be talking about cetaceans, but he apparently doesn't know that cetaceans don't breathe water and never did. If he's not talking about cetaceans, then what the fuck is he talking about?
Oh, and it's interesting to hear that unborn babies have "fully developed structures prior to being called into use". Doctors should announce that all of the growth and changes that occur after birth are a figment of our imaginations.
I wonder what he thinks of "structures" that 'develop' (or can 'develop') in the womb that will never be "called into use", like an extra head, extra limbs, nipples on a man, etc.? And why is it that godbots NEVER give their chosen god credit for all of the horrible things that 'develop' in many babies while they're in the womb, like diseases, disfigurement, disabilities, and death?
I also wonder if he would change his mind about ID and evolution if all human babies were to start developing eyes only after they're born? Apparently he thinks that development beginning at conception proves ID, and that there's something miraculous about humans having things like eyes at birth.
And what about premature babies?
And what about animals that 'develop' inside an eggshell (or egg membrane), not in a "womb"?
And what about Lepidopterans, that not only don't "FULLY develop" in a womb, but don't produce a fully developed adult straight from the fertilized egg? One minute the IDiots claim that multiple stages of development after 'birth' (metamorphosis) proves ID and the next minute an IDiot claims that so-called 'full' development in the womb proves ID. Which is it?
