Re: Scientific Discoveries That Suggest Evolution Is False?

On 7/9/24 1:23 AM, jillery wrote:

MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
proponentsists recently.  The following is an example:
 
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
 
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
 
 From the article:
 
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************

>
They lost me at "finch birds".
>

The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
 
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
necessary:
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
 
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
 
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
 
 
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.

>
I'm sure there's some important reason why they don't count, just like
mitochondria don't count.