Ghost Nymph Leg

[Ryan.M]

Prag is right. In fact the Catholic church has a "theistic evolution" view. They believe evolution is a natural process that god created. It doesn't change the fact that some classical-religion minded people still don't believe in it (along with those who take the words of the bible word for word; Jesus was born from a virgin, the resurrection, Noah's Ark, story of Adam and Eve, to name a few)

Making a claim that evolution is thus disproved because a praying mantis was able to regenerate one of it's limbs after a molt is ridiculous. When you take into account the cellular processes that are at work as an insect (or any other arthropod for that matter) grows, it makes perfect sense how it can come about. Shedding of the exoskeleton is simply revealing the next layer of an exoskeleton that allows the insect to grow bigger. The cells that are responsible for forming the new layer are still underneath the old, so they are able to regenerate it regardless. It's simply a matter of how much space is available between the layers that will determine whether or not it is a partial leg or a full leg in a single molt.

 

[Idolofreak]

How is evolution an offense toward God? You know that the Church's stance is that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, right?

Never said it's an offense toward God, just that evolution is not real and can be disproved. Here's a good argument: The requirements for life alone are so complex that chance and billions of years of evolution could not possibly create life. Life is only possible by the power of God and God alone. Another good argument is that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. No mutations could ever produce any new organs, let alone be passed on. No known mutation has produced a form of life with both greater complexity and/or greater viability than it's ancestors. Most mutations are either harmful or lethal, anyway. Give you some stuff to think about???

 

[Ryan.M]

Never said it's an offense toward God, just that evolution is not real and can be disproved. Here's a good argument: The requirements for life alone are so complex that chance and billions of years of evolution could not possibly create life. Life is only possible by the power of God and God alone. Another good argument is that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. No mutations could ever produce any new organs, let alone be passed on. No known mutation has produced a form of life with both greater complexity and/or greater viability than it's ancestors. Most mutations are either harmful or lethal, anyway. Give you some stuff to think about???

You raise a good argument Idolo, but natural selection can explain all of it. Life only had to happen a single time, and the chemical interactions that formed the first cell-like lipid membranes are easily created in a lab. So too are the amino acids required to create proteins that are the building blocks of cells and thier function. It is true that the probability of DNA (or first possibly, RNA) molecules interacting to create inheritance through generations (thus evolution) is quite low, but it only had to happen a single time. That single time would have been enough to start evolution. When you compare that to the probabilities of a god, or super, all powerful, all hearing being (by the way, who created him?), the probabilities, in my opinion anyways, are even lower.

And you say no mutation could ever produce new, complex organs. Of course it can't. However, mutations that conferred a slight evolutionary advantage would be built upon by generation over generation. Richard Dawkins talks about this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". You should read it, it's an excellent book. He uses plenty of examples.

He uses the analaogy of a massive, cliff-like mountain (Mount Improbable) and on it's jagged peak is a amazing complex organ. How can a single mutation account for that (the eye is a good example that he uses). A religious person (or individual who does not believe in evolution) would see the height and say "No way could a single mutation ever surmount to that, it must have been designed!". However, someone familiar with natural selection would look on the other side of the mountain and see gradual, smaller slopes (mutations) leading to the summit.

The point is a single mutation that gave an organism even the slightest advantage in it's environment would be chosen for over time in a population, as they would be surviving at a higher ratio than those who don't have the mutation. Eventually, after generations most of the individuals in a population would have that mutation, and it will be further built upon from generation to generation until a seemingly "designed" organ is observed.

Sorry for hijacking your original post, but I thought I would share some of the misunderstandings that are associated with evolution.

 

[patrickfraser]

I'm zig-zagging the line on this one.

 

[PragmaticHominid]

Give you some stuff to think about???

No, because you haven't said anything that I haven't heard before. Your arguments are loaded with fallacies and misinformation that frankly suggest to me that all your arguments have been taken from Creationists sources; they're also littered with unfalsifiable claims that could never be proven or disproven. I honestly see no attempt here to engage with actual evolutionary science.

I second Ryan's recommendation of Dawkin's books. Go and look at what evolutionists are actually saying (rather than the strawman arguments that Creationists put in their mouths) then come back when you're done.

 

[Arwen9]

I did the research (and it was more than ten minutes on Google, excuse me) And in the book the quote there was used to try to prove the idea of bubble or multiple universes, which seems ludicrous/grasping straws.

But I can't change people's mind any more than they can change mine. Believe what you like. I just ask to be treated as an informed individual who has their own viewpoint. Not that they're charlatans, fools, or blindly believing in something.