Replies

because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics. you can breed selective traits of an animal, sure. but the traits of a giraffe just don't exist in the banana code, and vice versa.

you seem basically honest about your understanding though (just a sunday evolutionist :). there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior. so for example, how would a thing evolve a blowhole?

evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea" (most people don't know about that part! it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features) so, at what point do you get a blow hole? You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead! The whole thing is preposterous. There are hundreds of impossible faults with the whole theory. The eye is another one, which Darwin himself admitted would be the downfall of his theory.

because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics. you can breed selective traits of an animal, sure. but the traits of a giraffe just don't exist in the banana code, and vice versa.

What do you mean when you say "Information" and "Code"? Do you mean the genetic code of a living being? The most concise definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states:

the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time

I fail to see what this has to do with genetic information. Perhaps you could you re-explain your position.

you seem basically honest about your understanding though (just a sunday evolutionist :).

I am an evolutionist only in that I find that modern evolutionary synthesis holds the most water when attempting to describe the diversification of life on earth. There is no feverishness on my part; no deification of Darwin. That'd be silly

there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

Well...OK. I'd be great if you could detail some for me.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior. so for example, how would a thing evolve a blowhole?

evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea" (most people don't know about that part! it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features) so, at what point do you get a blow hole? You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead!

Dolphins and whales do not merely possess mammal-like features, they are mammals. They possess mammary glands as well as many other features characteristic of their land bound brethren.

Is it not possible that the nostrils migrated from the end of the snout to the top of the head?

Where did you read (or see) any biologist claiming that cetaceans "evolved from some kind of cow"?

The eye is another one, which Darwin himself admitted would be the downfall of his theory.

Really? Here are Darwin's own words:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

This seems to support your claim. But he continues:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Which does not support your assertion. Darwin had no trouble believing that the eye could evolve from a simple bundle of light-sensitive cells to the complex biological machinery with which we are so familiar. And I agree with him.

because information can't appear from nowhere.

In the case of DNA segments can be copied more than once (AGCT ->AGCTAGCT) and copies can mutate (AGCT -> AGCTAGCT -> AGCTAGAT). Creatio ex nihilo? No. But additional information? Yes.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

ROFL. Only applies to isolated systems. Which organisms are not. You do eat, don't you?

there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

There are more examples to the contrary. Hint: mules.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior.

No. It must only once have proven an advantage under certain historical conditions (climate, environment, competition for resources etc.). "Superiority" is a subjective human observation.

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics.

See: star. Commonly referred to as "The Sun."

Re: little changes over vast amounts of time resulting in "big" changes.

See relevant comparison: Seconds, resulting in minutes ("microevolution") resulting in years, centuries, eons and epochs ("macroevolution").

how would a thing evolve a blowhole?

See: the hundreds of articles about just that. Is this the latest creationist "argument from incredulity?" Now that y'all are done with the eye nonsense?

evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea"

Sort of, yeah. I'm unclear as to why that's so hard to believe. See: the mountains of fossil evidence.

it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features

"Mammal-like features?" Are you suggesting dolphins, whales, and porpoises are somehow not mammals? That's curious. See: Definition of mammal.

You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead!

Not even close to being remotely true, but whatever.

There are hundreds of impossible faults with the whole theory. The eye is another one...

LOL. I thought we were past this one. I'd link enough evidence regarding the evolution of the eye to occupy you for a week - if I actually believed you'd read 2 words of it. (FYI, MUCH research has gone into this supposed "downfall" and I think even you would be amazed at what's been discovered/published.

The argument of "I find that impossible to believe!" will get you nowhere. I'm sure people didn't think we could fly airplanes or have cell phones or land on the moon at points in the last 150 years. But we did. You'll have to come up with something better. Like some research showing how nothing can survive with "half a blowhole." If you do, it'll get published and would even be cover material.

Hint: All a blowhole is is a migrated nostril. There was never "half a blow-hole." Ironically, there were two "blow-holes" that became one, so your argument would be, "I can't believe two nostrils became one and migrated up the skull!" I would think this wouldn't be hard to imagine even for a "micro-evolution accepting creationist." After all, if my nostrils migrated to my cheek, I'd still be a human, right? You'd perhaps gain more audience with a better question about cetacean echo-location evolution. To me, that sounds crazier. Just trying to help.