Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design

It's really amazng when you see a false paradigm that people believe. They abandon all logic and reason to accept the false paradigm.

Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design. There's a clear one to one correspondence between the need of the organism and the evolution of that specific need. There's no randomness or anything natural.

An organism needs x to survive and x evolves. How can anyone accept this as random or natural?

Why is this information availble to the organism?

If this occurred naturally and through random mutations, then there would be millions of fossils from organisms that evolved traits that didn't help it survive and even then why would the information needed for the organism to survive even be available? Where did it come from?

Again, there's a one to one correspondence between the need of an organism and the evolution of that need.

When an organism is in a malaria rich environment, a point mutation occurs that gives the organism sickle cell to fight against malaria. That's a one to one correspondence. The organism needs x to survive and a mutation occurs at exactly the right point in order to give the organism what it needs to survive.

Where is randomness or anything natural?

There was a recent study where a lizard evolved specific adaptions it needed in 36 years!

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

You know why it evolved so rapidly? It's because we're designed to evolve the traits that we need to survive. The intelligent Designer has downloded the information needed to evolve and survive in different environments.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF AN ORGANISM TRYING TO ADAPT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENTS IN ANY NATURAL OR RANDOM WAY!

We're Designed to adapt to different environments and the information needed to survive is available to us in the genome.

There's alsways this one to one correspondence between the organism needing x trait to survive and then that specific trait evolves.

With something natural and random, a, b, c, d.....x, y, z traits evolve and then over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, one of these traits just happen to magically be the right trait needed and is naturally selected via reproduction.

This is just a fantasy that's impossible and what we see is the organism needs x trait to survive and x trait evolves.

This is why they thought the lizard would take millions of years to evolve new traits to survive not 36 years. Where are all of the dead lizards that evolved the wrong traits that didn't help the lizard survive?

When I talk about transitional fossils, I'm not talking about an organism needing x trait then evolving the exact trait it needs to survive. I'm saying the fossil record should be littered with fossils that show thousands or millions of traits just randomly evolving that don't help the organism survive.

Here's some examples of adaptations:

The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.

The camel has several adaptations to help it survive in its environment. It has two rows of long, thick eyelashes to protect its eyes from the blowing desert sand, and its nostrils can be closed to keep out sand. Its hooves are broad and leathery, creating natural "snowshoes" to prevent it from sinking in the sand. And its hump stores fat so it can go for long periods without food or water.

www.thoughtco.com...

Why is this information available to the organism? How does the organism know what it needs to survive? Why don't we have a forest filled with long neck animals? Why does one species evolve camouflouge to hide from predators and another a hard shell to protect itself?

It's like a magic box filled with whatever you need. If you need money, reach into the box and pull out the exact change. If you need a wrench, don't look for one, just stick your hand in the box and pull out a wrench. Lost the remote? Don't go looking for it just stick your hand in the box and pull out a new remote.

This is a natural interpretation of evolution. It's a fantasy that can't happen.

Look at extremophiles. They adapt to all of these different environments they don't try to adapt in any natural or random way.

Like I said, this is just a false paradigm that's built to deny the existence and intelligence of our Creator.

a reply to: neoholographic

Hi Neo

Before I engage in this interesting thread could you do me the favour and answer my question of the 6th Oct from your
gold/ET thread. Much appreciated

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neoholographic
Funny that in the links provided they don't say or show what they consider to be "huge amounts of gold " that cant be accounted for being created. Whatamount of gold mass do they consider to be "huge"

Put another way "because I find a piece of ambergris on the beach" it may be the mystical manna of the bible.

en.wikipedia.org...


Ambergris has historically been used in food and drink. A serving of eggs and ambergris was reportedly King Charles II of England's favorite dish.[13] A recipe for Rum Shrub liqueur from the mid 19th century called for a thread of ambergris to be added to rum, almonds, cloves, cassi

So dinosaurs were intelligenty designed too?

How do you differ between a skeleton with sickle cell anemia and one without?


Just to name a mutation which is potentially lethal and would not show up in fossiles.

If you look for fossiles where a specific feature would (a) enhance the possiblity of successfull and propagating offspring and (b) this feature would show up clearly in a fossile, I cannot quote a range of fossiles which would show so.

Because I am neither biologist nor palaeonthologist. I only heard about the existence of such fossile-lines.

But I guess if you asked one of them, they might be able to show you a range of (for example) ancestors to the giraffe with a shorter length, stretching out.


It makes just so much MORE sense than a designer, meddling all the time with smallest settings on a mega-multitude of faunae and florae.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
How do you differ between a skeleton with sickle cell anemia and one without?


Just to name a mutation which is potentially lethal and would not show up in fossiles.

If you look for fossiles where a specific feature would (a) enhance the possiblity of successfull and propagating offspring and (b) this feature would show up clearly in a fossile, I cannot quote a range of fossiles which would show so.

Because I am neither biologist nor palaeonthologist. I only heard about the existence of such fossile-lines.

But I guess if you asked one of them, they might be able to show you a range of (for example) ancestors to the giraffe with a shorter length, stretching out.


It makes just so much MORE sense than a designer, meddling all the time with smallest settings on a mega-multitude of faunae and florae.

Again, there's no evidence in the fossil record or the genome that shows any natural or random adaption.

This is design! When x(malaria) occurs then y(a mutation) occurs at a specific point that gives carriers of malaria a protective advantage. Where's the evolution of information?



When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria. There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment.

Let's look at the Giraffe.

First, why didn't other animals evolve long necks to survive? Why don't we see a forest full of long neck animals?

The evolution of the Giraffe illustrates a couple of points.

First, there's a direct line of evolution. The Giraffe needed x to survive and it evolved x.

The two forces that drove giraffes towards elongating their necks are simple. The need to eat and the need to breed.....The evolutionary history of the giraffe brings us back to approximately 50 million years ago. An animal similar to antelopes evolved into two species that are extant today. Many of these animals roamed across Eurasia and Africa until they went extinct or evolved into animals we see today. These surviving members of the Giraffidae family are the okapi and the giraffe, both of which (Whom?) inhabit Africa. Many other extinct predecessors of the giraffe existed, and their fossils remain. By using these fossils scientists were able to figure out how their necks evolved anatomically.

The paper, published in the Royal Society Open Science, discussed several detailed aspects of each vertebrae in the neck that lengthened over the 15 million years that the Giraffidae family existed and over the 50 million year time span of the ancestral evolution of long necks. .Many species and families preceded the Giraffidae family, all of which exhibited either neck or cranial lengthening.

evolution-institute.org...

This is clear evidence of design. The Giraffe had a need and it evolved that need. Let me repeat:

Many species and families preceded the Giraffidae family, all of which exhibited either neck or cranial lengthening.

Here's a picture that shows this:



That's just a beautiful straight line of intelligent design. The animal needed x to survive and x evolved.

This paper that supports random mutations recognizes this problem.

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

mutation

They clearly recognize that if an organism is evolving to supply what the organism needs, then it's a directed mutation and you have intelligent design.

What they say is crazy but at least they're honest. Most people who support a natural interpretation of evolution say an animal evolved x trait because it needed the trait to survive in an environment. Well, that's directed mutations and intelligent design. They also say:

Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

WOW!!

Again, at least they're honest but they show why a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

What they're saying is adaption doesn't occur because of a need but somehow the organisms evolve all of these traits which include the exact trait the organism will need BEFORE THE ORGANISM IS IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT WILL NEED THE TRAIT TO SURVIVE LOL!!!

This will make a natural interpretation of evolution more psychic than Sylvia Browne!

I think they need to get their false paradigm on the same page. Another article says this:

The front paws of polar bears are shaped to propel them through water. Like camels, polar bears' noses have adapted for their benefit: Their nostrils can be closed when they're swimming underwater for long distances. A layer of blubber and dense layers of fur serve as effective insulation, helping them maintain a normal body temperature in the Arctic.

The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.

www.thoughtco.com...

What this clearly shows is a natural interpretation of evolution is false. Either:

A. An organism needs x trait to survive and it evolves x trait which is directed mutations and intelligent design.

B. The organism evolves what it needs to survive in an environment before it's even in the environment where it will need the trait. This is absurd and every organism would have millions of fossils associated with it because it's just randomly evolving traits.

Again, there's no evidence of an organism randomly or naturally adapting to their environment.

But aren't the "natural"/"random" trait evolutions spurred on / initiated by the external environment? So are not random. IE the giraffe didn't start to evolve a long neck as a reason to survive... It happened because the only giraffes which survived were those with a long neck and could reach the leaves, they passed this trait on and it got stronger. The dead giraffes didn;t all have random evolved traits with no link to the environment, they just had no evolved traits, just short necks.

a reply to: neoholographic
Which god?

And why that particular god?

Makes sense the CREATOR Creation is given genetic intelligence and possibly some higher form of consciousness to help evolve with potential ever changing conditions associated with habitat and energy/food and resources present.

Of course some who feel they are more intelligent then your mentioned intelligent designer will say there is no way such higher intelligence exist above them then the intelligence of mankind. Which at that point you just spiritually or scientifically recalibrate and remind yourself that you tried to enlighten them on the subject and continue on with your Spiritual evolution and advancement for beyond here...

a reply to: neoholographic

originally posted by: and14263
But aren't the "natural"/"random" trait evolutions spurred on / initiated by the external environment? So are not random. IE the giraffe didn't start to evolve a long neck as a reason to survive... It happened because the only giraffes which survived were those with a long neck and could reach the leaves, they passed this trait on and it got stronger. The dead giraffes didn;t all have random evolved traits with no link to the environment, they just had no evolved traits, just short necks.

Do you see how illogical a natural interpretation of evolution is? You said:

IE the giraffe didn't start to evolve a long neck as a reason to survive... It happened because the only giraffes which survived were those with a long neck and could reach the leaves, they passed this trait on and it got stronger.

You're caught inside the evolutionist conundrum.

Why did Giraffes evolve long necks? Were they adapting to their environment or did long necks randomly evolve and they just won out against all of these other traits? Oops, there are no other traits to win out against.

We see the evolution of a long neck from A to B.



Is there adaptation or isn't it?

All of the textbooks tell us that species adapt to their environment. What comes first, the random mutation before there's a need or evolutionary pressures caused by a need to survive in the environment?

It's obvious you read the article about directed mutations and realized, adaptation doesn't make any sense without directed mutations and intelligent design.

This is because an organism needs x trait to survive in an environment and evolves x trait.

What you're saying is worse. Somehow all of these species just evolved all of these traitsand it just so happens they hit the 6 digit every time and exactly the right trait they need evolves before they need it LOL!

We should see millions of fossils for each species with all of these traits just evolving.

What you're saying is there's no adaptation. This is the problem with the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution. It says one thing but then they try to change not based on science but because what they're saying doesn't support a natural interpretation of evolution.

Here's the way adaptation has been described throughout the years.

Adaptation, in evolutionary terms, is the process that species go through in order to become accustomed to an environment. Over many generations, through the process of natural selection, organisms’ physical and behavioral features adapt to function better in the face of environmental challenges. Adaptations are slow and incremental, and the result of successful adaptation is always beneficial to an organism. Snakes lost their legs to fit into underground spaces, mice grew large ears to hear predators at night, and giraffes developed long necks to reach the leaves on tall trees and bend down to drink water. Vestigial organs are by-products of evolutionary adaptations that are no longer useful in a species' environment, and are not considered adaptations.

sciencing.com...

Well, some people realize this points to intelligent design and directed mutations. So some people, like the site I mentioned earlier has gone to crazytown to try and avoid these facts.

In a recent study, lizards were put into an environment where they adapted traits to survive in that environment in a short 36 years.

Exactly what intelligent design and directed mutations would predict.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

The evidence for intelligent Design is clear.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: and14263
But aren't the "natural"/"random" trait evolutions spurred on / initiated by the external environment? So are not random. IE the giraffe didn't start to evolve a long neck as a reason to survive... It happened because the only giraffes which survived were those with a long neck and could reach the leaves, they passed this trait on and it got stronger. The dead giraffes didn;t all have random evolved traits with no link to the environment, they just had no evolved traits, just short necks.

The evidence for intelligent Design is clear.

To someone that has already made up their mind?

It would be beneficial to answer the other poster, and share what /who you think the creator is, and if it's linked to any specific religion?

I'm all for advanced civilizations potentially having an influence on our planet at some point, but the Christian God for example? Or Allah? Or any religious god?
Not so much.

a reply to: neoholographic

Very well done indeed!

a reply to: Klassified

The topic is intelligent design. not the one true God and don't
you get tired of asking that like forever? It's like your off topic
stand-by, go to for thread derailment binky. lol

Just mess'n with ya Klass but don't derail please?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Klassified

The topic is intelligent design. not the one true God and don't
you get tired of asking that like forever? It's like your off topic
stand-by, go to for thread derailment binky. lol

Just mess'n with ya Klass but don't derail please?

I think it is a good question and would be disingenuous not to answer.
It would only feel like a thread derailment to people who already agree with the OP.

"Intelligent design"

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Klassified

The topic is intelligent design. not the one true God and don't
you get tired of asking that like forever? It's like your off topic
stand-by, go to for thread derailment binky. lol

Just mess'n with ya Klass but don't derail please?

Considering the OP's other threads and comments, especially the condescending comment he started the OP with, I think it's a fair question and not off-topic in this case.

a reply to: neoholographic
I prefer intelligent design over evolution. But I thought your post didn't work in my mind. Maybe I need to read it all again because this long neck thing... it isn't an adaptation, it's just naturally occurring deviations in the same animal, which aid survival.

What comes first, the random mutation before there's a need or evolutionary pressures caused by a need to survive in the environment?

The random 'deviation', not mutation, comes first

Why did Giraffes evolve long necks? Were they adapting to their environment or did long necks randomly evolve and they just won out against all of these other traits? Oops, there are no other traits to win out against.

Long necks randomly evolved, passed down through the generations, the healthier guys had longer necks, this was passed down the chain. The neck wasn't in competition with any other traits... Sure they had different hoof sizes and different hair thickness I guess, but these don't aid survival so are not passed down....

Well, that's what we're told anyway.. I tend to believe your posts more than the textbooks.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If this occurred naturally and through random mutations, then there would be millions of fossils from organisms that evolved traits that didn't help it survive and even then why would the information needed for the organism to survive even be available? Where did it come from?

Think about this for a minute. If random mutations are not succesfull in helping the creature survive better, less fossils of that creature will be available. Hardly any generations would have these mutations because they just weren't very good at surviving and there for reproduction. The odds of finding a fossil with only a few generations is much smaller to finding a common fossil with benifitial mutations.
What do you mean 'why would the information to survive be available' ?
The genetic code IS the information needed to survive

a reply to: neoholographic

I intelligently designed some evolution once. Had some garbage bags on the floor of my kitchen for a couple years. When I finally cleaned them up, there was a foul brownish reddish liquid beneath them I affectionately dubbed 'the devil's breakfast tea' within this tea, were many crawling insects I took at first to be ants. Upon closer inspection, I realized they were wingless fruit flies.

My theory is enough generations of flies had come and gone that had lived solely on the liquid beneath the bags that they'd stopped growing wings.

I'm guessing the ones without wings would have likely had a better chance of survival as multiple fly generations passed in total darkness entirely within the rotting garbage liquid beneath the bags i'm guessing the original maggots hatched from.

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
So dinosaurs were intelligenty designed too?

NO! Those were made by the Debil! To make people believe in the lies of science! Every flat Earther knows this!

Get woke! Skyguy is on the way so you better watch out!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neoholographic

Very well done indeed!

Thanks,

It's obvious adaptation destroys any notion of a natural interpretation of evolution but this is a huge false paradigm connected to peoples beliefs. They use evolution to deny the existence of God.

Some scientist are realizing that adaptation supports directed mutations and intelligent design. In most of the literature, adaptation is described as an organism having a need to survive in a new environment and then evolving the traits to fill that need. This is what we see in the fossil record.

If this is the case, there's no need for natural selection because there's nothing to select. Adaptation occurs and the traits the organism needs to survive evolves. Natural selection is something that may happen between species in an environment but it has nothing to do with the information encoded in the sequence of DNA or when an organism adapts to a new environment.

Here's the choices.

A. An organism is in a new environment, it needs x traits to survive, envoronmental pressures occur, directed mutations and adaptation occur and the organism evolves the traits it needs to survive.

This is what we see in the fossil record. Some scientist are panicked and headed towards crazytown.

B. An organism is in a new environment, it needs x traits to survive, environmental pressures occur, random mutations occur with no direction, there's no adaptation because there's no direction, you just have the random evolution of all of these traits and the traits that survive are selected via reproduction.

There's zero evidence for this but those who believe in this false paradigm are desparate.

Again, these traits that evolve randomly don't have anything to do with the survival of the organism. This only has to do with environmental pressures that trigger random mutations.

So we should see thousands of fossils for each organism with some random traits that don't help the organism survive, traits that just help the organism a little bit and more.

We should see the fossil record littered with all kinds of traits and then it takes time for the best traits to win out and populate the environment.

This is a fantasy. It belongs in middle earth and we would never get the evolution of life this way. It only happens when an organism needs x to survive then x evolves not x, y, z, a, b, c, d... and more evolve.

We see the exact trait needed evolve from a to b.

The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.



The maned wolf needed longer legs to survive in the high grasslands and evolved longer legs. What the new crazytown interpretation of evolution says is, environmental pressures occurred, random mutations happened and all of these different traits evolved and one of them just happened to be exactly the right adaption needed to survive in the environment.

It's really crazy but logic and reason are thrown out of the window to support this false paradigm. Remember, the wolf can't be evolving long legs because it needs long legs to survive. That would be directed adaptations and mutatations. It just evolved a bunch of traits and one of the traits just happened to be what it needed to survive LOL!

What we see in the fossil record is the wolf needs long legs to survive so it evolve exactly what it needs to survive.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!

They were shocked to see lizards adapt to their environment in just 36 years instead of millions of years.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

The changes should take millions of years because according to a natural interpretation of evolution, the lizards aren't changing in a direction to adapt to their environment, they're just changing due to environmental pressures. These pressures trigger random mutations and thousands of changes randomly occur without any direction then over a long period of time the traits that best help the organism survive populate the environment via reproduction.

If anyone believes this nonsense, I have a Bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!