How does evolution account for new body parts?
-
Another clueless post from Peaceful; Science is How does evolution account for new body parts?
The simple answer is evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot account for new body parts because it cannot account for bodies. Given starting populations of prokaryotes it can't even produce eukaryotes.
One clueless loser thinks the alleged evolution of the mammalian middle ear is such an example. Too bad the paper it linked to is just speculation based on the assumption. The paper didn't describe the genetic changes that produced the anatomical transformations required. That means the paper did NOT discus a mechanism.
The imbeciles on Peaceful Science are still ignorant of then fact that ID is not anti-evolution.
Another clueless post from Peaceful; Science is How does evolution account for new body parts?
The simple answer is evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot account for new body parts because it cannot account for bodies. Given starting populations of prokaryotes it can't even produce eukaryotes.
One clueless loser thinks the alleged evolution of the mammalian middle ear is such an example. Too bad the paper it linked to is just speculation based on the assumption. The paper didn't describe the genetic changes that produced the anatomical transformations required. That means the paper did NOT discus a mechanism.
The imbeciles on Peaceful Science are still ignorant of then fact that ID is not anti-evolution.
posted by Joe G @ 8:42 AM
2 Comments:
At 3:29 PM,
JV said…
The paper didn't describe the genetic changes that produced the anatomical transformations required. That means the paper did NOT discus a mechanism.
Yes, you do love to make this point. However, you also cannot point to specific interventions that your supposed designer made to bring about the transformation in question. You just claim 'design' and walk away.
Also, since the genetic and morphologic and bio-geographic and fossil records all point in the same direction then, even not knowing the precise step-by-step path, why isn't the undirected evolutionary explanation the best? Remembering that the guided hypothesis sits on an undefined and undetected designer who did what exactly and when?
Even granting you some of your objections your own explanation is much more full of assumptions and special pleading. In other words: it fails Ockham's razor.
Because no one in the ID camp is even trying to fill in the details the ID explanation will continue to be weaker. And that's granting it a place at the table. Without uncontested evidence of a designer most people wouldn't even give it that.
You can bitch and moan that ID doesn't have to abide by its opponents timelines but it does have to do something more than what it has done. You can't just keep saying: this stuff looks really complicated and the non-ID camp haven't shown us a complete step-by-step account. That's not doing research. That's just being a merchant of doubt.
At 5:34 PM,
Joe G said…
And another tu quoque jerk chimes in. YOURs is the mechanistic theory, meathead. YOURs is lacking a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. And only an asshole would say we claim "design" and walk away.
Also, since the genetic and morphologic and bio-geographic and fossil records all point in the same direction then, even not knowing the precise step-by-step path, why isn't the undirected evolutionary explanation the best?
It all points to Intelligent Design.
Remembering that the guided hypothesis sits on an undefined and undetected designer who did what exactly and when?
That is the STARTING point for future investigation. It also happens to be the same for archaeology and forensic science. And yours sits on an undefined process that did what exactly and when? Hypocrite.
Even granting you some of your objections your own explanation is much more full of assumptions and special pleading.
Nice projection, asshole. All you have is question-begging and special pleading
Because no one in the ID camp is even trying to fill in the details the ID explanation will continue to be weaker.
And yet you still have nothing but your ignorance. Good luck with that
Post a Comment
<< Home