Here's some more replies to arguments I found while taking the time to go through all the posts again:
Birds share a variety of features with reptiles
Irrelevant. Could be convergent evolution, by your own scientific theory. Sharing features isn't what it used to be since they became a problem for Evolution and evolutionists needed to come up with the epicycle of convergent evolution to explain them away. Obviously, it cuts both way. You need to prove it is not convergent evolution, but a case of common descent. The same goes for the rest of your argument.
Why did God make two kinds of jaws, one with a large dentary and one in which the length of the jaw is split between the dentary and the angular?
Because He wanted to? Seriously, are you really keep questioning God? If you want a theological debate, we can have one, but then I don't want you whining that I was supposed to restrict myself to scientific arguments.
You are the one that keeps making theological arguments.
But I'd thought He created each organism independently! How can this be? One might as well just cry "Magic!"
I hardly believe that God created every single specie of dog, cat, horse, bird and flower out there, given that many of them are man-made. Are you defending this idea? I don't remember having ever mentioned it.
Prove God. You insist on Him, so I must believe in good faith that you have a reason for doing so. Share that reason with us.
I don't remember "insisting" on any idea whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, this is a debate on the merits of Evolution. Why are you trying to change the subject? Ran out of just-so stories already?
You have answered nothing, again: you have not explained why the DNA of a bat resembles other Mammals rather than birds.
I do not have to, since we both agreed that one; 'I do not know' is a valid scientific answer and two; that was not your question anyway. You are basically trying to change the subject to avoid admitting you cannot counter my point.
Of course! Absolutely! All life is made smart! The smart way! With recycled materials, and nothing left over or unused that might conceivably impact - sometimes literally - the health of the carrier organism, or represent some ancient purpose that obviously could never be.
Again, you did not deny that creating it using DNA was the smart thing to do. Can you address the point, please?
You are attempting, garbonzo, to promote a supernatural explanation for life.
No, I am not. I am discussing the merits of Evolution. The only mention I ever made of a Creator was to address your idea that DNA proves Evolution when I said that DNA fits equally well in a narrative of Evolution, Creationism or Panspermia. I have kept myself and my arguments solely on the scientific and logical side, save for the one exception I made to address a theological argument that
you made.
I would like an apology for this. I came on a science website looking to debate science, and you bring up theology. What is this poppycock? This is in Biology & Genetics, is it not? We are not in Religion.
If you disagree, present your evidence, please.
I
already did. I showed you three examples of convergent evolution, one between humans and hyenas, one between humans and macaques and one between humans and birds that
break the paradigm of common descent by the evolutionists own admission.
DNA certainly does not fit into a fairy-tale of creation where each organism is created without reference to any other, instead of increasing sequence distance being correlated with increasing morphological and geological distance between taxonomic groups.
Where in the creationist narrative it says that every organism was created without reference to any other? All that the Bible says is that each organism was created individually. Can you point me to the verse it says that they were created without reference to any other?
And again, any super-intelligence, be it alien or divine, that has figure out the spark of life will have long before figured out engineering. DNA means life was not merely created. It was
engineered. That's why it fits perfectly well either on creationism or panspermia.
Google "crystallization." Unless you claim that God or aliens cause it, you have an example of a local reduction in entropy.
Local reductions in entropy can exist. The key word being
local. Since you did not read what you replied to, I will write it again here: "A
local reduction in entropy requires a greater increase in entropy of the external environment." Crystallization is an exothermic reaction. Yes, it does reduces the local entropy, but at the cost of the external environment.
That statement is as foolish as saying as "Light as an EM phenomena is known to be incorrect; that's why they can't decide if it's a particle or a wave."
Light is an EM phenomena. I do not know what you mean by it being known to be incorrect.
Evolution, however, is known to be incorrect. There have been calls for a new evolutionary theory that encompasses the newest knowledge for a while now.
So you consider the science of embryology to be a hoax? Or were you referring to the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument, which was something completely different?
Then explain your point.
Here's a quotation from someone I was talking to regarding this, feel free to respond, I also told him he could join this forum to respond:
Evolution uses successful mutants/mutations and the unsuccessful ones usually perish by deselection as they don't reproduce as frequently or other factors kill them off. So that's why we are not piles of green goo right now.
You did not address the point. Every circumstantial beneficial mutation carries with it a detrimental effect. Every time evolution selected for the circumstantial beneficial effect, it
also selected for the detrimental effect. Circumstantial beneficial mutations are
circumstantial, and their benefit may or may not be relevant later. Detrimental effects, however, are
always present and are
forever. In accumulating circumstantial beneficial mutations that may or may not benefit us now, we have also accumulated detrimental effects that are always active, and remain with us.
To put it in your terms, how are we not the luckiest and the best of the best piles of green goo right now? Or put it in even more direct terms, how did we overcome the piling up of detrimental effects, since we could not have done so by
mutating, as the mutations were the ones creating them to begin with?
We found microbes in asteroids.
No, we didn't.
I will have to check my sources on that. I found the article but it seems that there are some people disagreeing with it.