Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court

[Cyberman]

This isn't always true, though. Evolution can be a reductive process too. To take a relatively simple example, the human little toe has shrunk down as the way our feet balance weight has changed. The number of toes hasn't changed, but one is dwindling, and in fact the last two phalanges in our feet are usually fused together, as opposed to the more mobile unfused variety found in other ape and primate species. Now, this all still has a use for our particular kind of locomotion, but it's still an evolutionary change that removes something, rather than grants something new.

Compare it to the canine dewclaw, which now serves very little purpose in most cases except to cause enormous pain and distress to dogs when it gets caught up in something and requires surgical excision, and which is often absent in newborn dogs who never notice any undue effects at the loss.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

You know if you put a ball at the top of a hill, a "force" we call "gravity" (it's not actually a force but it behaves like one) causes the ball to roll down the hill.

I think of evolution in much the same way. Evolution is a "force" which creates: diversity, complexity, structure, meaningful change. These characteristics aren't an accident and are not based on probability, they are as integral to evolution as a ball rolling down a hill is to gravity.

And FYI Matt, I'm done with playing your games. You want an intelligent discussion, then that's what you bring, you don't come and make demands on me while at the same time proving that you cannot offer the same quality of discussion that you demand from others. If you had a shred of integrity you'd present your own definition of complexity and then ask if I agree with it. Not demand that I give it to you.

You have no idea what complexity is yet you are certain evolution creates it. I am simply asking you to explain what you are talking about. But you refuse. I can also point out you have no working definition for meaningful as in meaningful change.

Evolution, the variation of allele frequency over time. Allele variations are why all the children of the same sex from the same parents are not identical. Change need never occur which is one reason there are extinctions. Without an allele variation making born without eyes a common birth defect there is no likelihood eye loss would spread through a bat population.

[justin]

You're having a discussion with a person who feels that separating environmental results from evolutionary results is a coherent position......

No you're a moron. I was pointing out the fact that the environment that bats live in dictates how developed their eyes get. If you keep a human child in darkness for the first two years of their life - they will never, ever, be able to see. Eyesight isn't purely genetic, it's also environmental. The same is true of smell. We don't typically develop our sense of smell very far; but we could if the environment fostered it, and that requires (again) no change in genetics. If the behaviour of bats suddenly changed, and they were no longer nocturnal, then they'd be able to see. Evolution wouldn't have any work to do, because you only need the exact same animal in a different environment.

---

But evolution is just change. An organism suddenly mutates in a small way; maybe it's beneficial, maybe it's harmful, maybe it's benign. Maybe a small burrowing rodent is born with a defect: non-functioning eyes. Since it lives by burrowing into the ground, it doesn't need its eyes that much in order to survive and propagate, and may even derive a small benefit from them.

Aha, I see where you've gone wrong. You think that DNA mutations drive evolution. As I've pointed out, this theory has been tested for a good 30 years now. Most DNA mutations are unhelpful or harmful. DNA mutations alone are not a strong enough force to drive meaningful change in populations and achieve more structured, more complicated organisms. It simply isn't at the root of how evolution works.

Species has in fact evolved to be largely resilient of DNA change. Look at how many different characteristics we have as an example - height, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour... yet for your theory on Evolution to be correct only the most beneficial DNA mutations should have survived - all the other ones should have been squeezed out of the genome.

no they shouldn't have. who told you that? species evolve to be resilient to DNA change? right that's we can observe crossing over happen.....heterozygote advantage is something to look up by the way. might help you last bit.

[Godscreated]

Animals that take to living in caves tend to lose there eyes. Is that more or less complicated? Please refer to the definition you have provided in answering.

Why would animals that have eyes take to living in caves, would it not make sense that animals who have lost their ability to see would choose the environment of caves, ie. protection form prey, easier food to prey on and ect.

By the way many here have spouted off about an easy $10,000, I bet none here will try and collect that easy money.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Animals that take to living in caves tend to lose there eyes. Is that more or less complicated? Please refer to the definition you have provided in answering.

Why would animals that have eyes take to living in caves, would it not make sense that animals who have lost their ability to see would choose the environment of caves, ie. protection form prey, easier food to prey on and ect.

You will have to ask the animals why. Some do.

By the way many here have spouted off about an easy $10,000, I bet none here will try and collect that easy money.

It is agreed it is impossible to prove a negative which is the requirement of the terms and conditions of the actual proposal. One cannot do the impossible. Therefore the bet, as state, cannot be won. Anything else?

[Esquilax]

By the way many here have spouted off about an easy $10,000, I bet none here will try and collect that easy money.

Considering the guy is pre-selecting the judges, guaranteeing a bias toward his side, I doubt it too. Challenges like this, from creationists, are built from the ground up to be unwinnable, that way the creationist can just claim victory when nobody bothers. It's hugely dishonest, but it's what's happening here.

[Garuda]

So this guy wants to give away 10,000$... AND get his ass kicked at the same time?