[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I suppose if you want to count a fifth leg on a cow as an evolved feature.

What's more is the multiple mass extinction events that ToE proposes. If God is such a master artisan of evolution, why did He have to keep killing them off to evolve right? Certain OEC's look at this and propose many things, such as the animals kept dying out and He simply kept replacing them with others. This idea is a remedy for many, many things, including the problem of evil and the Creation narrative in general. It also befits a lot of the evidence that evolutionists claim for their notions.
But 'theistic evolutionists' have no theology, period. They simply stand between science and religion and try to claim some superiority in theological concepts while simultaneously being utterly void of any.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

It's common in large breeds particularly.

Zammis is half beagle, half Shih-Tzu.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Barbarian, challenged to name the last time a new structure was seen to evolve:
Hmm... evolution of a new cecal valve in a population of Adriatic lizards. About.. um... roughly from 1971 to 2008.

Other than the fact that every time we check on the cause of evolved features, it turns out to have been genetic mutation. Numerous experiments have verified that genetic mutation is indeed random and not in response to need. Would you like to see some of that again?

Translation: "We have no evidence that the morphological changes observed in the Adriatic lizard population were actually due to random mutations. Unfortunately, I neither have the intellectual honesty nor the intellectual humility to acknowledge this fact."

On the other hand, we do have evidence for "adaptive mutations" - evidence that undermines the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution which holds that mutagenesis always occurs randomly.

"Adaptive Mutations Produce Resistance to Ciprofloxacin"

Adaptive mutations occur more frequently when beneficial to the cell, in direct contradiction to the standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which states that mutations always occur randomly with respect to the direction of evolutionary change.

(source: pg. 263, "Quantum Evolution" by Johnjoe McFadden -Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Surrey, United Kingdom.)

[Sealeaf]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

What's more is the multiple mass extinction events that ToE proposes. If God is such a master artisan of evolution, why did He have to keep killing them off to evolve right? Certain OEC's look at this and propose many things, such as the animals kept dying out and He simply kept replacing them with others. This idea is a remedy for many, many things, including the problem of evil and the Creation narrative in general. It also befits a lot of the evidence that evolutionists claim for their notions.
But 'theistic evolutionists' have no theology, period. They simply stand between science and religion and try to claim some superiority in theological concepts while simultaneously being utterly void of any.

Sum, Your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound that it is simply staggering. "killing them off" is what drives evolution. There is no "right way to evolve". Evolution just is, it is not directed toward a goal. God set it up that way and He is ok with that. It may be that He has a goal in mind, but if He does we are not privie to it.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Not to nit pick but your "cow' seems to have a penis.

I figured that was the knee of the camel standing beside it. In any case, I got the picture here.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Actually, it's probably not mutation, but a problem with development of somites very early on, or just possibly a splitting of a tissue during later development.

And, of course, natural selection tends to take care of such things.

I suspect most evolutionary biologists would characterized this as an evolutionary throwback (known technically as an "atavism").

[Sum1sGruj]

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Sum, Your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound that it is simply staggering. "killing them off" is what drives evolution. There is no "right way to evolve". Evolution just is, it is not directed toward a goal. God set it up that way and He is ok with that. It may be that He has a goal in mind, but if He does we are not privie to it.

You don't have any idea what I know. You are just drawing an empty conclusion projected by your biases

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by Damian

I suspect most evolutionary biologists would characterized this as an evolutionary throwback (known technically as an "atavism").

I'd question their knowledge of biology if they characterized it as such. Cows aren't thought to have five-legged ancestors.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I'd question their knowledge of biology if they characterized it as such. Cows aren't thought to have five-legged ancestors.

Your point is well-taken, but they used the atavistic argument to explain why a dolphin exhibited two hind legs. (They can't have it both ways.)

"Why Evolution Is True?" - lecture given by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne (see time @25:55)

[Damian]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

But 'theistic evolutionists' have no theology, period. They simply stand between science and religion and try to claim some superiority in theological concepts while simultaneously being utterly void of any.

I disagree. I'm a theistic evolutionist (the only real theistic evolutionist on this forum). My metaphysical position reconciles science and religion.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by Damian

Your point is well-taken, but they used the atavistic argument to explain why a dolphin exhibited two hind legs. (They can't have it both ways.)

I'd have to question their knowledge as well, especially considering that those weren't legs -- they were fins.

"Why Evolution Is True?" - lecture given by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne (see time @25:55)

That's just a rehash of the capitulation argument.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Sum, Your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound that it is simply staggering. "killing them off" is what drives evolution. There is no "right way to evolve". Evolution just is, it is not directed toward a goal. God set it up that way and He is ok with that. It may be that He has a goal in mind, but if He does we are not privie to it.

Either your God has a purpose or your God is mindless.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

That's just a rehash of the capitulation argument.

What's the "capitulation argument?"

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by Damian

What's the "capitulation argument?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

What's more is the multiple mass extinction events that ToE proposes. If God is such a master artisan of evolution, why did He have to keep killing them off to evolve right? Certain OEC's look at this and propose many things, such as the animals kept dying out and He simply kept replacing them with others. This idea is a remedy for many, many things, including the problem of evil and the Creation narrative in general. It also befits a lot of the evidence that evolutionists claim for their notions.
But 'theistic evolutionists' have no theology, period. They simply stand between science and religion and try to claim some superiority in theological concepts while simultaneously being utterly void of any.

There were many extinction events because God cursed his own creation remember? The whole world was destroyed from Noah's cataclysm. Life had to start anew. Instead of creating a whole new set of creatures, God engineered his original class of animals with an enormous amount of adaption potential in their genetic makeup. This adaption was limited however and was not capable of turning tadpoles into monkeys. It was powerful enough, however, to turn a single cat like animal into thousands of different felines from bobcats to cougars to lions.