The Theory of Evolution

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

There are about 1070 atoms in the observable universe. There are only 1090 seconds in the 15 billion years generally said to be the age of the universe. The probability of spontaneously forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10450. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167,626. The probability of a simple living cell reassembling itself under ideal natural conditions if all components were present but chemical bonds were broken is 1 in 10100,000,000,000. Mathematicians consider any event with a probability of less than 1 in 1050 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.

How is it that when you are again and again provided with answers to your insufferable questions, you just ignore them and post the same questions again and again, as if you hadn't been provided with an answer?

The obvious conclusion is that you're not interested in any answer that contradicts your locked-in-concrete ideology.

This lastest post of yours once again demonstrates that you have not even the most rudimentary knowledge of mathematics. You write

"There are about 1070 atoms in the observable universe."

Even a grade-school student would recognize the absurdity of that statement. There are approximately 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's six sextillion) atoms in even a grain of sand, you moron.

The fact that you don't recognize how absurd a number like "1070" is shows you are nothing more than a shell, a puppet, a recording machine that repeats words and numbers that are nothing more than syllables, without meaning or reason.

You're obviously not familiar with the elemetary mathematical concept of exponents, as in 10^70. Perhaps that number is what you meant.

But even more absurdly, you post "probabilities" of this and that without bothering to show the pedigree of those figures.

If I wrote, "92.4% of all evangelical Christians are clinicially depressed. That proves that evangelical Christianity should be abandoned."

Would you accept that 92.4% figure and agree with my conclusion. Or would you ask me where that number came from?

Where do YOUR probabilities come from? Show me their deriviation. Show me that those probabilities are widely accepted as correct figures.

Why am I even wasting my time. It's clear the "Riprorin method" is as follows:

1) Find web site that claims to refute some "anti-God" notion.
2) Scan web site for sections to quote. Do not attempt to actually understand anything.
3) Quote sections on AT P&N. Do not bother actually reading own post for clarity and typos.
4) When presented with challenge, do not actually attempt to understand what is being said. Instead, puppet back pat phrases - no actual understanding required: "Show me how oxygen can produce life in a reductive environment?"
5) Repeat 1 through 4 ad-infinitum.

You're going to ignore the MEANING this post just like you ignore anything else that challenges your ideology. You are hopelessly, willfully ignorant. You have no interest in obtaining knowlege. You have no interest in understanding what others write. You're sole motivation is pushing the evangelical message. You are immune from rational argumentation.

I pity your children.

Edited to summarize the Riprorin methodolgy.

It's 10^70 and 10^90. I think that's fairly obvious.

 

[misterj]

Originally posted by: loki8481
ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."

personally, I don't know how my stereo works, but I'm not about to tell people it was crafted by the hand of God

but it is that's where the confusion lies.

coexistence. no matter what science conjurs up, God will always be at the root. (?)

 

[Mudsnake]

from stones and arrows to computers = is that simple . is much harder to me how we actually claim of time. example a million year is nothing on earth clock. but yet we argue over millions of this or millions of that. 12 months that makes 1 year . etc etc . we really dont have a real grip of earth time.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

So in a nutshell are you trying to use science to prove god only created us???

The scientific evidence points to a designer.

Originally posted by: rahvin
I warned ya all. Just like trying to teach a pig math.

Well at least they are out in the open now and not hiding behind a prophetic veil. :thumbsup:

 

[dannybin1742]

There are about 1070 atoms in the observable universe. There are only 1090 seconds in the 15 billion years generally said to be the age of the universe. The probability of spontaneously forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10450. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167,626. The probability of a simple living cell reassembling itself under ideal natural conditions if all components were present but chemical bonds were broken is 1 in 10100,000,000,000. Mathematicians consider any event with a probability of less than 1 in 1050 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.

yes but quantum mechanics also shows that even an event with infantessimally small probablilty that is not zero can still happen, take a class in quantum mechanics you yahoo, and then come back and talk about math and probability

 

[dannybin1742]

so rip how old is the earth?

how long have the homo-sapiens been around?

how did the earth form?

is there actually a finite number mass in the universe?

 

[Riprorin]

The topic of this thread is "do you believe in the theory of evolution?"

My answer is "no".

1. How can the "natural and coincidental variations" within a particular species provide an explanation for the diversity in plant and animal species?

2. If living things evolved gradually, where are the millions of "transitional forms" in the fossil record?

3. How does natural selection explain complex organs such as eyes, ears or wings? How could they have evolved gradually considering that they would fail to function if just one part was missing?

4. How did the first organism come into being? How do natural processes create life from the inanimate?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Rip,

1. The diversity came from hundreds of millions of years of organisms living in diverse enviornments that were dynamic. Not hard to envision at all in my opinion.

2. Only a tiny fraction of all living things go on to become fossils. And of those that have, we have only found a tiny fraction of them as well. Who would imagine that we should have found a complete record of all life? It is not necessary to have 100% of the evidence to draw a conclusion, even a reasonably accurate one. If I observe a murder, it is not necessary to know whether the murderer was wearing boxers or briefs to conclude that he committed the crime.

3. It is quite reasonable to assume that organs and charictaristics less developed that what we see today might still have served their owners well in a past enviornment. You make no true argument here at all.

4. They are working on it. Just because we don't have the answer yet, doesn't mean it was magic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The topic of this thread is "do you believe in the theory of evolution?"

My answer is "no".

1. How can the "natural and coincidental variations" within a particular species provide an explanation for the diversity in plant and animal species?

2. If living things evolved gradually, where are the millions of "transitional forms" in the fossil record?

3. How does natural selection explain complex organs such as eyes, ears or wings? How could they have evolved gradually considering that they would fail to function if just one part was missing?

4. How did the first organism come into being? How do natural processes create life from the inanimate?

Shakes head, so sad.

You have obviously never taken two different plant species and made a hybrid out of them which make a completely different characteristic species.

Try it in your garden some time, you may learn something, or maybe not.

Hint: The resulting new species doesn't leave any "transistional forms" behind :roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Rip,

1. The diversity came from hundreds of millions of years of organisms living in diverse enviornments that were dynamic. Not hard to envision at all in my opinion.

2. Only a tiny fraction of all living things go on to become fossils. And of those that have, we have only found a tiny fraction of them as well. Who would imagine that we should have found a complete record of all life? It is not necessary to have 100% of the evidence to draw a conclusion, even a reasonably accurate one. If I observe a murder, it is not necessary to know whether the murderer was wearing boxers or briefs to conclude that he committed the crime.

3. It is quite reasonable to assume that organs and charictaristics less developed that what we see today might still have served their owners well in a past enviornment. You make no true argument here at all.

4. They are working on it. Just because we don't have the answer yet, doesn't mean it was magic.

1. Natural selection is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher order" so evolutionists have tried to argue that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutation. However, mutations do not create new genetic potential, and, in addition, they are small, random, and harmful to the genetic code.

2. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

3. ***** From Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, East Sussex, England: Monarch Publications, 1994, British edition, pp. 34-35:

The more pressing difficulty [of Darwin's theory of evolution] was theoretical. Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels. How can such things be built up by "infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?" The first step towards a new function--such as vision or ability to fly--would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval alchemist producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of a supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

Stephen Jay Gould asked himself "the excellent question, What good is 5 percent of an eye?," and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard Dawkins responded that

An ancient animal with 5 percent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 percent vision. . . .
The fallacy in that argument is that "5 percent of any eye" is not the same thing as "5 percent of normal vision." For an animal to have any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring.

Dawkins went on to restate Darwin's answer to the eye conundrum, pointing out that there is a plausible series of intermediate eye-designs among living animals. Some single-celled animals have a light-sensitive spot with a little pigment screen behind it, and in some many-celled animals a similar arrangement is set in a cup, which gives improved direction-finding capability. The ancient nautilus has a pinhole eye with no lens, the squid's eye adds the lens, and so on. None of these different types of eyes are thought to have evolved from any of the others, however, because they involve different types of structures rather than a series of similar structures growing in complexity.

If the eye evolved at all, it evolved many times. Ernst Mayr writes that the eye must have evolved independently at least 40 times, a circumstance which suggests to him that "a highly complicated organ can evolve repeatedly and convergently when advantageous, provided such evolution is at all probable." But then why did the many primitive eye forms that are still with us never evolve into more advanced forms? Dawkins admits to being baffled by the nautilus, which in its hundreds of millions of years of existence has never evolved a lens for its eye despite having a retina that is "practically crying out for (this) particular simple change."

4. There are about 10^70 atoms in the observable universe. There are only 10^90 seconds in the 15 billion years generally said to be the age of the universe. The probability of spontaneously forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10^450. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10^167,626. The probability of a simple living cell reassembling itself under ideal natural conditions if all components were present but chemical bonds were broken is 1 in 10^100,000,000,000. Mathematicians consider any event with a probability of less than 1 in 10^50 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton discusses the complex structure of the cell:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

 

[Mudsnake]

for those still in the god thing = God put us on earth so we can learn how to nuke each other with hydrogen bombs .

 

[jackschmittusa]

Rip

1. Natural selection is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher order" so evolutionists have tried to argue that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutation. However, mutations do not create new genetic potential, and, in addition, they are small, random, and harmful to the genetic code.

The "higher order" part is just an unsubstantiayed statement. Please explain how mutant strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics is "harmful to the genitic code.

Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I consider that to be an outright lie. Intermediate forms in a line of development are clearly documented in the fossil evidence.

The geological age of the layers in which fossils have been found also clearly shows that different species existed at different times.

3. ***** From Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, East Sussex, England: Monarch Publications, 1994, British edition, pp. 34-35:

The more pressing difficulty [of Darwin's theory of evolution] was theoretical. Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels. How can such things be built up by "infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?" The first step towards a new function--such as vision or ability to fly--would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval alchemist producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of a supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

An argument completely without merit. Virtually every element of development towards flight can be shown to have possible advantages in themselves. Feathers, for example, even today exibit may useful charactaristics unrelated to flight, such as: thermal insulation, mating rituals, camoflauge.

The alchemist anology is incredably weak. Production of a functional microchip without an understanding of the underlying tech and numerous collateral technologies is far beyond any rational possibility.

4. I have not looked at this kind of number-crunching in any depth, but I would imagine that if it were that easy to explain creationism, mathematicians the world over would be waving their calculaters in the air, jumping on the bandwagon. I do know that even studying the weather shows the difficulty of trying to represent large systems, over even reletively short time periods, that include almost infinite variables, in a mathematical model, to be extraordinarily difficult. And the universe as a system, is orders of magnitude more complex than the weather on a single planet in a single galaxy.

 

[Phantasm82]

Haven't read all the preceding 8 pages of this thread, I apologize for anything I say being a redux of prior arguments.

1. Natural selection is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher order"....

An interesting point. I'm not sure what you mean by a "higher order" organism, however. I would certainly say that a human being is of a higher order than a mouse, and that the same relationship holds between a mouse and a bacterium. I'm almost positive that such leaps haven't been observed in anything outside of conjecturing what happens in fossil records ... On the other hand, we have been (rahter unfortunately) witnessing the evolution of tetracycline/ampicillin/streptomycin resistant bacteria. Although this form of natural selection certainly isn't advancement to a "higher order", I think it's undoubtedly advancement to some degree. While we haven't been able to observe multi-celled organisms (as far as I know) evolve form bacterium, I think that with enough of these small steps, a more dramatic change can be envisioned. Of course, this also brings up the unverifiability of evolutionary theory and the ironic "have faith" dilemma that someone so cleverly brought up earlier in this thread ...

2. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils .....

I'd hesitate to say that *no* transitionary forms have been found. One popular theory is that birds evolved form dinosaurs -- they found a curious blend of both in Archaeopteryx (sp?). It's skeleton resembled that of a dinosaurs, while also having feathers. It's said that while it's wing muscles were incapable of true flight, it possessed the ability of controlled gliding.

3. Your choice of the eye is rather interesting. It's by far one of the most complicated systems in the human anatomy. Your quote mentions:

"Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with [sufficient] mental and neural capacity... what we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring."

Why couldn't this complex capacity also evolve? I'll try to build my example from the one in the quote. Say you started with single-celled organisms having a light-sensitive spot ... and these evolved into multi-celled organisms. These multi-celled organisms, now possessing a photoreceptor system, need some way of coordinating a "light reflex". For example, the presence of a shadow could be indicative of a predator. So a random mutation produces a connection from the photoreceptor to a primitive nervous system -- a primitive optic nerve. And through the generations, these connections grow stronger along with the nervous system. Later, another fortuitous mutation connects the visual pathways to the ones responsible for balance -- the vestibular system. This animal now possesses the vestibulo-oculomotor reflex -- it can track objects while its head is moving. Now the animal can not only sense and coordinate a retreat from the predator, it can watch the predator as it retreats.

A highly fanciful story, to be sure, but hopefully one that argues that such complex capacity can evolve concurrently with the eye itself.

Also ....

"But then why did the many primitive eye forms that are still with us never evolve into more advanced forms? "

Evolution, if I'm getting my theories straight, is the product of random mutations that produce "fitter" offspring. It could be that of the 40 or so primitive eyes that developed, only some species were actually gifted with that rare, random mutation that allowed them to advance.


4. There are about 10^70 atoms in the observable universe ... mathematicians consider any event with a probability of less than 1 in 10^50 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.

I've always been slightly leery of calculations like this. I'm still unclear how they generate these numbers (I was a math major in college) and until I understand this better, it all seems like a bunch of conjecture to me. The fact that we still require tons of processor power (e.g. Folding @ Home) to determine how an amino acid chain produce a protein's tertiary/quaternary structure seems to be a testament to how much we don't know about how atoms interact with each other in chemical bonds.

Also, not to belabor the point that I'm sure many biologists make, but highly improbably does not mean impossible. However, scientists, especially biologists, use a p=0.05 or p=0.01 significance as grounds to publish a paper. An interesting dichotomy, to be sure. But that's another topic.

Well, those are my thoughts -- let me know what you think! . Sorry I was so long-winded, chalk it up to insomnia. My wife is actually fundamentalist Christian, so we've had some interesting chats about this before.

Thanks,

~Eric

 

[0marTheZealot]

This thread makes me cry.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

1. Natural selection is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher order" so evolutionists have tried to argue that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutation. However, mutations do not create new genetic potential, and, in addition, they are small, random, and harmful to the genetic code.

Justify your claim that the modern theory of evolution is incapable of advancing an organism to a higher order.

I already asked you that in this thread, and all you do is repeat the same quotations ad infinitum.

Time to put up or shut up: EXPLAIN how modern evolution (not "natural selection", not "Darwinism") is INCAPABLE. IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

 

[Riprorin]

There's not a single shred of scientific evidence to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve.

Natural selection is incapable of causing organisms to evolve from one basic kind to another.

While genetics permit a wide variety of specific features within the limits of a particular kind, the range of variation is limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular "kind".

There has never been oberved any changes across kinds, ie, a dog becoming a cat.

New varieties may be established, but not new kinds.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I consider that to be an outright lie. Intermediate forms in a line of development are clearly documented in the fossil evidence.

Please give me some examples.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's not a single shred of scientific evidence to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve.

Natural selection is incapable of causing organisms to evolve from one basic kind to another.

While genetics permit a wide variety of specific features within the limits of a particular kind, the range of variation is limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular "kind".

There has never been oberved any changes across kinds, ie, a dog becoming a cat.

New varieties may be established, but not new kinds.

lol... wow.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's not a single shred of scientific evidence to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve.

Natural selection is incapable of causing organisms to evolve from one basic kind to another.

While genetics permit a wide variety of specific features within the limits of a particular kind, the range of variation is limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular "kind".

There has never been oberved any changes across kinds, ie, a dog becoming a cat.

New varieties may be established, but not new kinds.

lol... wow.

Exactly, evolutionary theory is absurd.

Since natural selection is incapable of creating new species, modern evolutionists have come up with a new theory: Punctuated Equillibrium, which is a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster" theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s.

 

[homercles337]

Hey Rip, your ignorance astounds me.

Question: How many science classes have you had in your lifetime?
Question: How many biology classes have you had in your lifetime?
Question: How do you view science?
Question: By what authority do you so readily discount THOUSANDS of scientific findings?

Oh, and on your "no transitional life forms" nonsense. Look here: Talk Origins.

 

[cquark]

4. There are about 10^70 atoms in the observable universe. There are only 10^90 seconds in the 15 billion years generally said to be the age of the universe. The probability of spontaneously forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10^450.

The problem with this calculation, whether or not it's correct, is that it's based on false assumptions: the evolution works by chance. Hint: there's a reason the theory is called natural selection, not natural randomness.

If this argument made any sense, it would also disprove the theory of natural gestation! After all, the probabilities that a single cell could evolve by chance into a baby are astronomically worse than the probability of forming a protein randomly.

The "Theory of Natural Gestation", i.e. that a human baby grows from a
single cell, is a lie. Anyone with a knowledge of simple statistics
can see this easily. A human being does not grow from an egg and
sperm as "Science" would have us believe. We do not come from eggs,
like chickens. A human being is created in the womb by the Creator,
in his own image.

The proof is obvious. A human baby has an estimated 5 TRILLION cells.
They consist of hundreds of different types of cells, each of which
serves a particular purpose. "Science" would have us believe that all
5 trillion of these cells, in all their precise types and functions,
somehow magically manufacture themselves at the right time, then
mystically travel to just the right place and begin performing their
allocated function on cue. This is about equivalent in probability to
having the complex components of a fleet of 747s assembling themselves
from a bunch of metal scraps, then moving themselves to their
appropriate positions and fastening themselves in, activating
themselves, and flying off into the sunset! Boeing could save a pile
of money in labor costs with that manufacturing process!

Let's take a look at the statistics. First of all, a single cell is
extremely complex, and the difference between cell types is
tremendous. The idea that a single cell would be able to produce each
type of cell required seems ridiculous to the average intelligence and
rightly so (every seen a liver spontaneously change into a brain?).
However, let's grant this so that we can continue. Let's assume there
are 200 different types of types of cells (a low estimate), and that
they are approximately equal in number. That would mean that any
single cell would have a 1 in 200 chance of being in the right place
at the right time. The probability of getting a baby randomly
creating itself, then, is equivalent to the probability of throwing a
200-sided dice and getting the right answer 5 trillion times in a row!
The odds of that happening are one in 200 to the power of 5 trillion!
That's equal to 2 to the power of 38 trillion, which means that if
cells can replicate themselves every 4 hours it would still take 152
trillion hours before you would expect to generate enough cells to
have a chance of getting 5 trillion cells in the proper configuration.
Not only would mom be getting a bit old at that point, but she would
be getting quite large as well - like about half the size of the known
universe!

Well, says science, the basic structure forms in the first few days
and from there is just like-cells replicating themselves. OK, lets
say that only 5 million cells (one-millionth of the final total) of
approximately the proper shape and configuration would be required.
That's much more reasonable - the probability of getting a set of 5
million cells in the proper configuration is one in 200 to the power
of 5 million. Mom would only be a few thousand years old by the time
that happened.

Obviously, this theory of natural gestation is simply impossible. To
what lengths will science go to deny the role of the Creator in human
development? There is no solid evidence of any kind to support
natural gestation - that's why it's just a theory, and will remain so
until scientists remove their blinders, open their eyes and see the
truth.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I consider that to be an outright lie. Intermediate forms in a line of development are clearly documented in the fossil evidence.

Please give me some examples.

I gave you a number of examples above, but you seem oddly mute when it comes to responding to my posts in this thread.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's not a single shred of scientific evidence to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve.

People have posted plenty of examples earlier in this thread. If you have objections to them, please state them.

Natural selection is incapable of causing organisms to evolve from one basic kind to another.

What is the definition of a kind? How can we tell the differences between one kind and another?

While genetics permit a wide variety of specific features within the limits of a particular kind, the range of variation is limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular "kind".

What precisely is this limit and what mechanisms enforce it?

New varieties may be established, but not new kinds.

Please define your terms--variety and kind--in a scientific manner and support your claims.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The scientific evidence points to a designer.

What scientific test would allow us to distinguish between an evolved structure and one created by a designer?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
***** From Roger Oakland and Caryl Matrisciana, The Evolution Conspiracy, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1991, pp. 90-91:

A video system, engineered by the design of man, functions in very much the same way as the eye. . . . No one would ever suggest that a video system is the product of random processes of chance over millions of years of time. Yet the eye, which is far more complex, is commonly attributed to the process of evolution--

This is an absurd comparison.

Video cameras can't have children. Animals with eyes can.

Video cameras don't contain the information required to make them. Eyes do, in every one of their cells.

Video cameras consist of macroscopic, modular machinery with no strong interactions that's stamped with an indicator of the human who made them. Each part is individually constructed using a different machine that's outside the video camera.

Animals with eyes consist of microscopic, heavily redundant molecules that interact with each other and themselves through powerful secondary electromagnetic forces when that have no such stamp. Each protein is constructed in the same way using other molecules inside the animal, in a manner that resembles pop beads more closely than it does the video camera assembly line's many machines.

even though Charles Darwin himself said, "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 degree."

Please stop quote mining. It reflects poorly on you to continue to use this dishonest technique of snipping and selecting quotes, especially when you re-use the same quote after its flaws have been pointed out to you.