Still no fossils
- Thread starter Cisco Qid
- Start date
There is a paucity of fossils. The number of fossils we have, compared to the number of species that have exists, is tiny. But please explain how not having many fossils disproves evolution.
The simple fact is that the tree of life is exceedingly well established. It is explains Linnaeus classification of organisms in a way creationism cannot. It is confirmed by comparing differences in biochemistry, such as amino acid sequences, something that again creationism cannot explain. It is confirmed by genetics.
Sure there are gaps in the fossil records, but that just means there are fossils waiting to be discovered. To claim creationism is true based on what we have not yet discovered is just plain nonsense.
And citing a YouTuber whose qualification is a BA in apologetics from a Bible university as an authority is pretty desperate. Oh look, he did a fancy video; he must be right! That may work with the ignorant but... Oh, wait, that is creationism's target audience.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
So the millions of gaps are filled by faith in fossils unseen. You can't get amino acids from abiogenesis and no cell membrane for protection.
That sounds more like the creationist position. They have faith that the fossils will not be found. A faith based on religious believe, that is against reason.
Evolution, in contrast, can point to the fact that all the fossils found so far fit into the theory. And it can point to all the other over-whelming evidence for evolution.
Evolutionists do not need faith; they have evidence and reason.
Your evidence is? Sounds like faith to me
Again fossils with similarities to them is not evidence for evolution. The current fossils point to them being designed or created because there is too much complexity to them.
rossum
Well-known member
Your problem is that you see fossils with similarities are evidence for design and you also see fossils with differences as evidence for design. There is no possible set of fossils that will falsify design.
Science will reject an unfalsifiable theory.
Evolution can be falsified; Darwin gave an example:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
What ID has so far failed to produce is an equivalent statement of how to falsify design. In effect, you need to describe something that the designer could not have designed.
Your evidence is?
What you have failed to do is prove you claims.
It is you who just annihilated Darwins theory because many structures like the feet, heart, mouth and so forth were formed for the good of most species.
And yet you present no evidence for your faith based assertions thus falsifying your religious faith.
Yet you present no evidence thus the mythical tree is based on faith.
TeabagSalad
Well-known member
And what about all of the biological systems which are terrible? Why did the designer make such a mess of the human reproductive system? Why are humans unable to create vitamin C unlike pretty much every other species?
You missed the point. Feet, heart and mouth were formed for the good of the species in which they evolved, and are now found in branches of the tree from that ancestral species.
Darwin was saying it would not be possible to evolve a feature in one species that did not benefit that species, but benefited some other species.
rossum
Well-known member
You have misunderstood Darwin. Human feet are for the benefit of the human species. Horse's feet are for the benefit of horses.
Evolution can potentially be falsified.
So far I see no potential falsification for ID. Tell us something that the Designer cannot design.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
How did dumb luck mutation goddess anticipate what would be good?
How did a beast function before a heart "evolved"?
The big one. Show us the "development" of the Central Nervous system. That corners a Darwinist every time.
There is a Wiki page on it:
Evolution of nervous systems - Wikipedia
Perhaps you should do a little research before claiming something "corners a Darwinist every time"?
Links are not evidence its irrelevant until you prove evo can create novel functional biological information.
No you are not - you have presented no evidence.
Not the point - the question is for the the atheist pixie to answer.
No I did not misunderstand because feet are similar on a lot of species, in that they were made to walk on.