-= This amazing fruit fly evolved to have pictures of ants on its wings =-

[re_con]

---

Ang ako ra gyud masulti sa creature kay COOL!

[igibouy]

Ok.
I asked the lecturer (I think he was a full professor if not an associate professor) where the fossils are that should show the incremental changes in species. It's a simple question but one that hasn't been answered.

It was originally asked by a scientist, from memory a professor at Oxford. It has never been answered by science.

Think about it: if this fruit-fly changed little by little, shouldn't we find fossils of its progress? They simply don't exist.

Indeed there is incremental changes when observing fossils. The changes in fossils between rock layers is one of the evidences supporting evolution. One example would be modern birds and their therapod dinosaur ancestors, whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

Are you talking about the gaps between these changes perhaps?

Simply put, the fossils that might have supposedly closed the gaps between fossils have not been found yet. They may even be lost to us forever. You see, fossilization in an extremely rare occurrance. The animal has to die and lay down (prefferably without parts missing or be scavenged later), needs to be buried in a sediment that requires the right chemistry for the bones to be undissolved, buried in depth but not eroded, needs to be exposed by passing groundwater long enough and rich with the right minerals for the bones to be replaced with more stable material, then the fossil must be bought back up to the surface by erosion for us to find it. Evolutionary biologists realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the conditions in the environment that form good fossils are rare.

Unfortunately, creationists use this lack of available data to argue that the only default explanation for these gaps is intelligent design.


Since you are a creationist, I would also like you to show me any evidence against evolution--and no, the Bible doesn't count. ALong with evidence that suggests that the earth is a few thousand years old.

[kano]

Since you are a creationist, I would also like you to show me any evidence against evolution--and no, the Bible doesn't count. ALong with evidence that suggests that the earth is a few thousand years old.

Why do you think the Bible should not count? It's a record of what happened written by people to whom it was passed down to. I don't know of any more reliable evidence than that. You're letting your bias get in the way of the evidence.

[emailroy2002]

kinsay ga design ana TS ang langaw? naka imbento na guro sila og photoshop.

[igibouy]

Why do you think the Bible should not count? It's a record of what happened written by people to whom it was passed down to. I don't know of any more reliable evidence than that. You're letting your bias get in the way of the evidence.

"You're letting your bias get in the way of the evidence."
I don't think you know what evidence means, sir. Forgive me if I find your 'It is what it is because the Bible says so' rebuttal unconvincing. You will need to prove creationism by giving me concrete evidence because if we only use books as proof, then using that logic, Dragons must be real because The Lord of the Rings books says so. Like I said before, this IS a science forum. I'm gonna need more than a 2000 year old poorly translated piece of literature for your argument to be credible here. Hell, the Bible isn't even as reliable as you say it is. The Bible says that there was a great flood and the earth is a couple of thousand years old. There wasn't even proof of that flood occurring and thanks to advances in science like Dendrochronology and Radiometric Carbon Dating, the Earth is much much much older than what the Bible claims.

[JViLLe]

Grabe ka on a very sensitive topic.. hahaha

anyway.. what if naay tattoo ang taw sa iyang braso.. ang design kay taw sad

[igibouy]

Grabe ka on a very sensitive topic.. hahaha

anyway.. what if naay tattoo ang taw sa iyang braso.. ang design kay taw sad

The conclusion of that Logic does not follow its premise. It is non sequitur. Simply put, complexity does not imply design and does not prove a creator's existence. This is commonly known as the Teleological Argument.

I recommend you to watch BBC Horizon - The Secret life of Chaos to get a more in depth understand of how complexity and order arise naturally. I'd show you the youtube link but BBC blocked it Mga hangul

Teleological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[archangelrafe]

.....nice.....

[francered]

wow is it true?

[JViLLe]

The conclusion of that Logic does not follow its premise. It is non sequitur. Simply put, complexity does not imply design and does not prove a creator's existence. This is commonly known as the Teleological Argument.

I recommend you to watch BBC Horizon - The Secret life of Chaos to get a more in depth understand of how complexity and order arise naturally. I'd show you the youtube link but BBC blocked it Mga hangul

Teleological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kbye..........