I'm just passing through but I noticed that Steve Levin claimed that Windarr's argument (about when the notocord/ spinal cord developed) is flawed because fossils of every living thing out there have not been found. Is that not evidence for spontaneity? Do we first really need to find or know everything before reaching a good conclusion? Can't 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' suffice in the meantime? There is certainly no evidence of transitions for any of the spinal cords we have found! Steve then challenges: 1.) Why is it that all living things are based on DNA/RNA...? 2.) Why is there such a conservation of amino acid sequences...? 3.) How do you explain the universality of HOX genes? 4.) How come bone structure in a chimp and man are so...? Well, I don't know whether Steve believes in a God (a lot of scientists do) but he might be able to imagine being a god, and at that point might find himself wondering why man would require him to use different materials and systems to enable his living creations to interact with the commonalities in the environments? Would it be unreasonable of him to give a heart to fish, birds, mammals and other animals which he might make even though they may not actually be related? In my garage, I have a hocky stick, an old tennis racket, a chair and a bed post. All are wooden, shaped by tools, and painted. The four questions which Steve poses above imply that their commonalities necessitate that the DNA/RNA, amino acids, HOX genes, and bones all resulted from a common process (evolution). Would you make the same assumption with the four items in my garage? Is a simple, "No" truly a 'shallow answer'? Readers ought to check out AnswersInGenesis.org and ICR.org, not only for the scientific facts, but for good clear logic as well. Cheers
I'm just passing through but I noticed that Steve Levin claimed that Windarr's argument (about when the notocord/ spinal cord developed) is flawed because fossils of every living thing out there have not been found. Is that not evidence for spontaneity? Do we first really need to find or know everything before reaching a good conclusion? Can't 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' suffice in the meantime? There is certainly no evidence of transitions for any of the spinal cords we have found! Steve then challenges: 1.) Why is it that all living things are based on DNA/RNA...? 2.) Why is there such a conservation of amino acid sequences...? 3.) How do you explain the universality of HOX genes? 4.) How come bone structure in a chimp and man are so...? Well, I don't know whether Steve believes in a God (a lot of scientists do) but he might be able to imagine being a god, and at that point might find himself wondering why man would require him to use different materials and systems to enable his living creations to interact with the commonalities in the environments? Would it be unreasonable of him to give a heart to fish, birds, mammals and other animals which he might make even though they may not actually be related? In my garage, I have a hocky stick, an old tennis racket, a chair and a bed post. All are wooden, shaped by tools, and painted. The four questions which Steve poses above imply that their commonalities necessitate that the DNA/RNA, amino acids, HOX genes, and bones all resulted from a common process (evolution). Would you make the same assumption with the four items in my garage? Is a simple, "No" truly a 'shallow answer'? Readers ought to check out AnswersInGenesis.org and ICR.org, not only for the scientific facts, but for good clear logic as well. Cheers