an irrefutable analogy explaining evolution

[mhaberling]

Parking Places....

I apologize for using the word seemed... It was simply to convey a lack of certainty due to inadequate evidence...
Some of my issues with the theory were laid out in my previous argument... if those were not clear ill be happy to lay out more for you. As I believe I already stated, My problem with evolution is that it is presented as fact even though the theory is incomplete.


Thank you for your post... I want you to know how valuable it is to a conversation to get hung up on one word in a post that is not even the main argument but instead a response. [/sarcasm]

[mhaberling]

IC does not exist.  It is an illusion caused by looking at the evolutionary process backwards.  Lets say a new plague breaks out and some small percentage of humans survive because that have a mutation in their appendix that saves them.  Then the survivors breed of course and repopulate.  A thousand years later they all think "We must have been created because we can't live without an appendix" and they forget that there was a time when this was NOT the case.

Obviously Irreducible Complexity does not stop the creation of structures... The idea is that is slows it down.

[ParkingPlaces]

Parking Places....

I apologize for using the word seemed... It was simply to convey a lack of certainty due to inadequate evidence...
Some of my issues with the theory were laid out in my previous argument... if those were not clear ill be happy to lay out more for you. As I believe I already stated, My problem with evolution is that it is presented as fact even though the theory is incomplete.


Thank you for your post... I want you to know how valuable it is to a conversation to get hung up on one word in a post that is not even the main argument but instead a response. [/sarcasm]

Well, the trouble with the english language is that its words all mean something, and oft times something different. I would suggest you stay away from casual wording when talking about something you consider serious.


Name a complete theory of anything. So that I can compare it with the incompleteness of evolutionary theory. I need to know what your standards are.

[Cyberia]

Obviously Irreducible Complexity does not stop the creation of structures... The idea is that is slows it down.

But it doesn't, it's an illusion that comes about after the fact, it can't affect what occurs prior.

[Add Homonym]

My problem with evolution is that it is presented as fact even though the theory is incomplete.

There is no such thing as an incomplete theory. It either works, or it doesn't. If you perceive it to not work, then find evidence that shows how it doesn't work, and collect your Nobel prize. It's that easy. Please dig a fossil out of the ground that defies the theory, by appearing out of the wrong rock strata, or find a fossil which shows that God forced development from one animal to another.

Evolution is never truly presented as a fact, except by people who are doing polemics.

Re: incomplete theories. The atomic physics "Standard Model" has been incredibly successful. All the particles that it predicts have been found, except for the Higgs Boson. Does the lack of finding the Higgs mean that it is incomplete? Or, does it mean that the theory has worked very well, up to this point, and nobody has managed to fault it?

Newton's theory motion worked very well, until Relativity was discovered, but up to that point, nobody knew it was not working. Creationists seem to know that evolution doesn't work, without having any evidence that it doesn't.

[Irish]

My main problem is that as I stated in my argument, things seemed to have happened in ways that do not line up with the theory of evolution.

What things happened that don't line up with the theory of evolution?  If it's still involved with your statement that (paraphrasing here), "there hasn't been enough time for the evolutionary changes we see to have happened" then remember: evolution can happen extremely rapidly, even between generations.  Any sort of statistically significant change in the gene pool of a population is evolution.  The change doesn't have to actually be outwardly noticeable to still be evolution.