https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/15/world/human-brain-map-harvard-google-scn

Reminds me a lot of this:

https://cosmicweb.kimalbrecht.com/

https://www.google.com/search?q=high%20resolution%20cosmic%20web&hl=en-US&udm=2&sa=X&ved=0CBwQtI8BahgKEwjwh6rG15OGAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgAE&biw=390&bih=661&dpr=3#imgrc=cFo7fnWR2YfmMM&imgdii=QjxHKbcye7rInM

4 billion years in the making, it better be fancy.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

4 billion years in the making, it better be fancy.

---

That's the key question, isn't it? Why would time increase ordered complexity? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

Jabin said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

4 billion years in the making, it better be fancy.

---

That's the key question, isn't it? Why would time increase ordered complexity? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

---

I personally dont think that to be true, no. It's one thing when you're a pair of cells vibing together. I'd imagine in another billion years we'll be so complex that we may be able to repair ourselves and prevent aging and death by natural causes. Just my opinion. My personal belief is that we probably won't survive as a species much further than 20,000 years, but that's how evolution works. Out with the old, in with the new.

Quote:

---

Here is an analogy that I think could apply.

I am an electrical engineer and the work I do is in designing / renovating buildings. Ground up construction, a lot of times, is easy. But renovations can be a little tricky. Imagine a 60 year old building that was built for one tenant. And over the years, tenants move out or new tenants move in, and each time you have to redesign part of the building that is already there to fit the new needs. And after 60 years and a dozen tenants worth of this process you are left with a building that has been patched and tweaked, that is full of vestiges of old design elements, and full of inefficiencies. Each time you renovate, you ask yourself "what is the best / least expensive way to get to the new tenant's requirements from the current existing conditions. And inevitably, that answer is basically always different from how you would design toward the tenant's requirements in a ground up project.

---

I'll allow you to retract that analogy. It's one that an intelligent design scientist would use all day and every day. Who was the engineer of the brain and/or the universe (since this thread explicitly compares the two)? Again, random chance does not lead to increasing complexity. Outside of evolutionary theory, there are no examples, and especially not of an unbroken chain of increasing complexity over billions of years.

Quote:

---

The analogy isn't perfect since human engineering design is intentional whereas genetic variation is not. But, I think it demonstrates how vestiges and complexities of the 'previous version' can get carried through.

The laryngeal nerve is a classic example of this as well. It is a nerve in the neck connecting two points, but takes a u-turn inefficient pathway to connect those two points. In our far distant ancestors, the nerve takes a straight shot. But, as we evolved and changed shape, the path became less straight. Because evolution involves minor changes, with each generation, it became 'easier' to have an inefficient path for the nerve than to fully redesign the pathway. The example is best demonstrated in giraffes where you have this nerve that needs to only travel a short distance between points, but is instead about 5 meters long to run down the neck and back up. Evolution does not get to tear up an old design and start over. It has to constantly build upon what is already there.

---

How do we know what the never pathways were for our far distant ancestors? Do we have any specific examples of such pathways? And, if such exist, how do we know with certainty that they were our ancestors?

What process ensured that those random changes resulted in benefits to the organism? Can you provide examples of anything outside of evolution where random changes resulted in beneficial changes?

What evidence would you consider relevant to the question whether the changes were due to outside engineering vs. random chance? What evidence would you consider persuasive to refuting the hypothesis of an outside engineer?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is an analogy that I think could apply.

I am an electrical engineer and the work I do is in designing / renovating buildings. Ground up construction, a lot of times, is easy. But renovations can be a little tricky. Imagine a 60 year old building that was built for one tenant. And over the years, tenants move out or new tenants move in, and each time you have to redesign part of the building that is already there to fit the new needs. And after 60 years and a dozen tenants worth of this process you are left with a building that has been patched and tweaked, that is full of vestiges of old design elements, and full of inefficiencies. Each time you renovate, you ask yourself "what is the best / least expensive way to get to the new tenant's requirements from the current existing conditions. And inevitably, that answer is basically always different from how you would design toward the tenant's requirements in a ground up project.

---

I'll allow you to retract that analogy. It's one that an intelligent design scientist would use all day and every day. Who was the engineer of the brain and/or the universe (since this thread explicitly compares the two)? Again, random chance does not lead to increasing complexity. Outside of evolutionary theory, there are no examples, and especially not of an unbroken chain of increasing complexity over billions of years.

---

As I said:
The analogy isn't perfect since human engineering design is intentional whereas genetic variation is not. But, I think it demonstrates how vestiges and complexities of the 'previous version' can get carried through.

Regarding 'random chance': Does your worldview allow for such a concept to even exist? If God is the architect and creator of everything, what room is left for randomness?

Quote:

---

How do we know what the never pathways were for our far distant ancestors? Do we have any specific examples of such pathways? And, if such exist, how do we know with certainty that they were our ancestors?

What process ensured that those random changes resulted in benefits to the organism? Can you provide examples of anything outside of evolution where random changes resulted in beneficial changes?

What evidence would you consider relevant to the question whether the changes were due to outside engineering vs. random chance? What evidence would you consider persuasive to refuting the hypothesis of an outside engineer?

---

A question was asked about why the process of evolution might result in additional complexity rather than simplicity. I attempted to provide my answer as to how (to the best of my understanding). Based on your questions above, I think you are questioning how we know evolution occurs or why I don't believe it to be guided. I think this all addresses different questions from what I was answering in my post.

If you are interested in well explained technical answers, I assume you know you are not going to receive them from me and that you are smart enough to know there is a mountain of literature and research on these topics from actual scientists. If you are simply interested in 'my understanding', then I'm happy to share - addressing your questions in order:

How we 'know' maybe depends on what you consider to be reasonable evidence. I don't 'know' that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Heck, I can't prove that its more than an hour old. Maybe God poofed us into existence 10 minutes ago with these memories and me mid-typing sentence on this forum. What I attempt to do is look at the evidence and reach for conclusions that best fit that evidence. And be open to the likelihood that the conclusions are almost certainly at least partially wrong and incomplete and in need of updating as new evidence comes in. If you believe that 'revealed truth' from a supernatural source is reasonable evidence, then that is totally fine. But, we aren't going to come anywhere close to agreeing on these things. All we can do is share our perspectives.

Yes, the laryngeal nerve is observed to be basically 'straight' in fish. There is evidence of a shared common ancestry with fish through research in genetic mapping from fish to other vertebrates to mammals to primates to humans.

What process ensured that those random changes resulted in benefits? Passed down traits that do not result in a benefit are simply less likely to be passed to the next generation. Passed down traits that do offer a benefit increase the chance the organism will procreate and pass the mutated trait along. It is incorrect, however, to say that this process has the intention of benefit for the organism.

I'm not sure what kind of examples you are looking for regarding random changes resulting in beneficial changes. For a big example, I might point to the formation of our solar system as a random process that resulted in a suitable planet of about the right size and about the right spot to support life. 'Beneficial' of course is a subjective term. Life isn't beneficial for the universe. The universe doesn't care. As a conscious being, I determine it to be beneficial subjectively.

The problem (for me) with concluding that genetic changes are due to 'outside engineering' is that you've introduced something that is beyond materialism and science's capabilities. And while I do not reject the possibility of something existing beyond materialism, I am unaware of any process for reliably evaluating such a claim. Materialism has the scientific method and a process for understanding reality through observation, testing, repetition, predictability, etc. There is no equivalent in religion or supernaturalism.

What I do observe, is that all of life on Earth is a spec in the universe. And the history of that life is littered with billions of 'failed' species that have gone extinct. And the history of life is a story of billions of years of life, suffering, death, and repeat. The idea that the estimated 4.5x10 to the power of 27 animals that have ever lived all existed for the purpose of me does not seem rational. And when I look at 'me', I see wisdom teeth and a tailbone and ear muscles and an inverted optical system. As incredible as the human body is, I do not see it as a designed thing. And if it is designed, why did God give us things we don't need? And why did God give us genetic mutations that result in birth defects. The idea that we are created by an outside engineer suggests that babies dying of Trisomy or congenital disorders is an intended feature rather than a bug.

In the past, I have provided examples of something that God (if real) could do that would cause me to believe. As an example, if every person alive was given an identical revelation by God on their 16th birthday to tell them who God is, what God did, what God wants, etc. etc. etc. . . . . then this is an example where I cannot fathom a naturalistic cause.

Now, all that said. . . . I'm open to being wrong. But, for me personally, I would require something beyond some person who lived 2000 years ago said so, therefore, it must be so.

This last question of course can be turned around - what evidence would you accept or consider persuasive in determining that evolution had natural causes? I don't mean this as any sort of trap question. Admittedly, I have a high bar for belief in the 'outside engineer'. You may hold a similar high bar but of the inverse.

Kurt, I was working on a long reply to your erudite post and accidentally hit "Cancel" rather than "Post"! I am both chagrined and probably too lazy to retype it all. (I wish that Texags had an autosave feature like Microsoft Office products. Their autosave has saved my rear-end innumerable times.)

Give me some time and I may work up the motivation to do retype my response. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

My apologies, e-friend.

Been there!

Quote:

---

Regarding 'random chance': Does your worldview allow for such a concept to even exist? If God is the architect and creator of everything, what room is left for randomness?

---

I've made this point several times before. Randomness is a high level philosophical construct that is absolutely incompatible with nearly any religious worldview

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Regarding 'random chance': Does your worldview allow for such a concept to even exist? If God is the architect and creator of everything, what room is left for randomness?

---

I've made this point several times before. Randomness is a high level philosophical construct that is absolutely incompatible with nearly any religious worldview

---

I thought this might the case for at least some people here which is why I asked this question. A debate about what random chance can or cannot do or result in becomes nonsensical if we disagree on whether anything can be random to begin with. It might as well be a debate on what color unicorns are if one of us believes they exist and the other does not.

That said, I don't know Jabin as well and don't want to assume anything.

That's an interesting question and one on which I'm not familiar with the writings of Christian thinkers. The baseline, from a Christian perspective, is that God is in control of everything. However, does he in his infinite wisdom and power allow randomness at all in his creation?

I don't know the answer to that but I suspect that the answer is yes. Wouldn't free will, for example, be an example of randomness?

I suspect (note my hesitant and equivocal language) that God, while in control of every subatomic particle, does permit randomness except when he doesn't.

Other's thoughts?

Jabin said:

---

That's an interesting question and one on which I'm not familiar with the writings of Christian thinkers. The baseline, from a Christian perspective, is that God is in control of everything. However, does he in his infinite wisdom and power allow randomness at all in his creation?

I don't know the answer to that but I suspect that the answer is yes. Wouldn't free will, for example, be an example of randomness?

I suspect (note my hesitant and equivocal language) that God, while in control of every subatomic particle, does permit randomness except when he doesn't.

Other's thoughts?

---

I would say He has to allow for randomness in order for free will to exist, as you have stated. For free will to exist there needs to be a rational creature. So I think that considering human rationality to be random is impossible.

In short, I think God allows for lower levels of randomness but not complete randomness in His design, which is why Christians that believe in evolution still have to believe is some level of guided evolution. God had an active hand in humans coming into existence.

Plus, the fossil record apparently provides strong evidence for guidance. Some have said that rather than evidencing a "tree of life" (i.e., life originating from a single source), it better resembles a lawn or garden (i.e., multiple forms of life suddenly appearing in the fossil record).

I think it's best to be clear about definitions. If you equate randomness with unpredictability, then humans are random by design. We have free will which is unpredictable by definition. However, there is a whole field of mathematics called chaos theory that deals with unpredictable but deterministic equations.

I'm using the definition of randomness that equates with chance or luck. These are events that are unpredictable but also unintentioned or unguided. In theologic speak, these events are unwilled. They just happen. That is not possible in a religious setting. For monotheists, God wills all. Even if you believe in free will, God leaves a gap in His Will that people then fill in with our will. There is nothing outside the wills of either God or humans. In other religions, deities were actively invoked when chance or luck was involved. Tyche, Fortuna, Lakshmi, the Seven Gods of Good Fortune are just a few examples.

The idea of things "just happening" is philosophically revolutionary. To me, it also seems to be an assumed axiom for a lot of modern thought. I think by defnition there is no way to conceptualize a mechanism for things to occur in haphazard ways, so the disorder necessary for that to exist must be the foundation for any such thought

I followed you up to the following sentence. Could you explain it further?

Quote:

---

I think by defnition there is no way to conceptualize a mechanism for things to occur in haphazard ways, so the disorder necessary for that to exist must be the foundation for any such thought

---

Good post, by the way.

Let me try to do better. Imagine you're trying to set up a system that displayed truly random behavior, not just chaotic or unpredictable behavior. You think about it and think about it, and then you realize it's impossible. If you designed the system, then the system is that way by your design. It therefore can't be random, as true randomness is unguided action. So in my limited understanding, you can't have a mechanism for randomness. The whole point of randomness is that it uncaused, unguided, and undetermined. So randomness or complete disorder must be the first principle.

So working your point backwards, are you suggesting that the appearance of order in the universe implies some intelligence that provided that order?

If the universe were truly random, we would have no natural laws, nothing would be predictable, etc.?

Jabin said:

---

So working your point backwards, are you suggesting that the appearance of order in the universe implies some intelligence that provided that order?

If the universe were truly random, we would have no natural laws, nothing would be predictable, etc.?

---

Not exactly. I mostly have two points. First, randomness/disorder is foundational. It can't arise out of any system of laws or logical mechanisms. Second, randomness/disorder is completely contradictory to religion, as religious worldviews all explain why the world is the way it is and give meaning to existence and events.

I'm not trying to make an argument against randomness and fundamental disorder. It might be possible for order or the semblance of order to arise out of randomness. There are also worldviews compatible with randomness such as existentialism. Meaninglessness as a worldview is compatible with randomness as a fundamental force of existence.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

So working your point backwards, are you suggesting that the appearance of order in the universe implies some intelligence that provided that order?

If the universe were truly random, we would have no natural laws, nothing would be predictable, etc.?

---

Not exactly. I mostly have two points. First, randomness/disorder is foundational. It can't arise out of any system of laws or logical mechanisms. Second, randomness/disorder is completely contradictory to religion, as religious worldviews all explain why the world is the way it is and give meaning to existence and events.

I'm not trying to make an argument against randomness and fundamental disorder. It might be possible for order or the semblance of order to arise out of randomness. There are also worldviews compatible with randomness such as existentialism. Meaninglessness as a worldview is compatible with randomness as a fundamental force of existence.

---

But can order and randomness coexist in a single, closed system?

Jabin said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

So working your point backwards, are you suggesting that the appearance of order in the universe implies some intelligence that provided that order?

If the universe were truly random, we would have no natural laws, nothing would be predictable, etc.?

---

Not exactly. I mostly have two points. First, randomness/disorder is foundational. It can't arise out of any system of laws or logical mechanisms. Second, randomness/disorder is completely contradictory to religion, as religious worldviews all explain why the world is the way it is and give meaning to existence and events.

I'm not trying to make an argument against randomness and fundamental disorder. It might be possible for order or the semblance of order to arise out of randomness. There are also worldviews compatible with randomness such as existentialism. Meaninglessness as a worldview is compatible with randomness as a fundamental force of existence.

---

But can order and randomness coexist in a single, closed system?

---

Very good question, and I have no idea

I suspect that they cannot, but completely lack the tools to prove or disprove my suspicion. In fact, I don't even know which tools to use!

ETA: What most people mean by "randomness" seems to be "unpredictable", and especially "unpredictable" to them.

Jabin said:

---

I suspect that they cannot, but completely lack the tools to prove or disprove my suspicion. In fact, I don't even know which tools to use!

ETA: What most people mean by "randomness" seems to be "unpredictable", and especially "unpredictable" to them.

---

You're probably right about the colloquial use of "randomness".

Regarding the other, my stream of consciousness is this. I can envision two fundamentally oppositional forces. One is orderly and the other disorderly. You could probably square that line of thinking with any dualistic worldview such as Zoroastrianism. You can also see from chaos theory that unpredictability can lead to semblances of order. The unpredictibility of chaos theory is deterministic though, so I'm not sure if the same would be true for undeterministic disorder.

Consider something like radioactive decay. General understanding of the process is that behavior of individual atoms is inherently random. But overall samples of decaying material behavior in predictable and ordered ways. Might it be that we describe behavior of individual atoms as random due to a lack of further or deeper scientific understanding? I don't know.

In the context of this discussion, I feel like we are using the term 'random' to mean distinct from 'guided' or 'intentional'. And sticking with evolution, is mutation guided and intentional or unguided? Perhaps each of our own presuppositions determine how we answer that question regardless of available evidence.

I've often used what I call the Rube Goldberg God problem to question whether or not evolution might be guided. It is far too narrow to marvel at human complexity and claim that evolution must be guided. If evolution is guided, it must also explain why there has been 3.5 billion years of it. And why there have been trillions and trillions and trillions of animals that have simply lived and died eons before we would ever exist. Guided evolution must also explain why 99.9% of species ever to exist have gone extinct. Guided evolution means that it was God's plan for dinosaurs to rule the world for 265 million years!!! A thousand times longer than humans have existed. It would mean that genetic mutations resulting in birth defects that kill babies is guided by God. There is no sensible answer to why?

If God guided evolution is the claim, what are the observations we should expect to see that back that up? And what observations would refute the claim?

Quote:

---

Consider something like radioactive decay. General understanding of the process is that behavior of individual atoms is inherently random. But overall samples of decaying material behavior in predictable and ordered ways. Might it be that we describe behavior of individual atoms as random due to a lack of further or deeper scientific understanding? I don't know.

---

The idea that radioactive decay (and other quantum processes) are predictable and deterministic with the right information is the hidden variable hypothesis of quantum mechanics. To my best knowledge it has been thoroughly discredited. It seems in the quantum realm that probability and uncertainty are physical facts, and not just appearances due to lack of information. How that jives with the idea of God is beyond me, other than to say that God doesn't have to follow physical laws.

Quote:

---

If God guided evolution is the claim, what are the observations we should expect to see that back that up? And what observations would refute the claim?

---

I don't think there is a good answer to this question. We would need to know how God's mind works, what are His priorities, and how does He value those priorities in relation to each other. At least in Christianity, God is unknowable. I think it can be useful the other way around, though. Based on what we can learn about our universe, we know God isn't the shiny, happy, unicorns. rainbows, and gumdrops type of God. As you said, too much death and violence for that to be the case. I think that is only useful in one direction though. Trying to prove God through the physical world just doesn't work, but trying to know God through the physical world probably has some value. Or to put it more in your worldview, the physical world can be used to narrow down the possible options for the character of God, if God exists.

I was going to point out quantum physics and hidden variables in response to your previous post. I think you are essentially correct in pointing out a fundamental incompatibility of randomness with a truly omnipotent and omniscient god. It's such a conflict that even the idea of allowing free will is extremely difficult (if not outright impossible see other threads) to logically justify a mechanism for that maintains knowledge of the future. Chaos is easy, it's really just a matter of relative complexity. But true randomness is a tricker thing than free will. In fact a will is just a localized determinism semi-divorced from other determinism. In such a sense it seems you could argue that god is "handing over authority" assuming he's capable of doing so.

For the quantum my understanding is that you could be Laplace's demon, and know literally everything it is possible to know about the system with some limits due to the uncertainty principle and you still will be unable to predict the outcome. But the uncertainty principle itself is just a way of saying laplace's demon can't know "everything" (as opposed to everything that can be known).

I think the way to get past this is the same solution as for free will. Just say that omniscience is a bit of an exaggeration. Suddenly everything is possible, free will, a bit of true randomness. You even remove one of the classical can god do conundrums. Instead of can god create a rock he can't lift, you have can god create something he can't predict-and suddenly the answer is a clear yes. And it doesn't actually seem to cost you anything philosophically or theologically.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Jabin said:

---

As incredible as the human body is, I do not see it as a designed thing. And if it is designed, why did God give us things we don't need? And why did God give us genetic mutations that result in birth defects. The idea that we are created by an outside engineer suggests that babies dying of Trisomy or congenital disorders is an intended feature rather than a bug.

---

---

For an electrical engineer, I find this ironic.

House construction:
Foundation
Frame
plumbing
electrical
siding/brick
roof
HVAC
electrical



Conclusion: Designed

Human Body:

Frame - skeletal system
Skin - exterior siding/brick
Neurological system - Electrical
Plumbing - Urinary
HVAC - Respiratory system
Endocrine system
vascular system - (with self healing features like platelets)
digestive system
reproductive system




Conclusion: Not designed. A product of time, chaos, chance?

Quote:

---

And if it is designed, why did God give us things we don't need?

---

Why did God give us things we don't need?
If we cannot determine the reason, that doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist in the eyes of the designer. That answer may be something that remains a mystery depending on the information available.
Example:
If I see a building from the 1700 hundreds, I may not be able to explain why a feature exists that the builder. It could have been for a purpose, it could have been simply for his pleasure.

Quote:

---

And why did God give us genetic mutations that result in birth defects. The idea that we are created by an outside engineer suggests that babies dying of Trisomy or congenital disorders is an intended feature rather than a bug.

---

Assuming there's no information about God or questions answered as to why things are they way they are, then this conclusion is reasonable. However the best explanation for who God is, how He's interacted in human history, and why things are they way they are have been answered to some degree.

Perfect creation without defect. - Genesis
Creation is cursed - defects are the result of the curse, not the original design. Genesis 3
Creation groans due to the defect - we see this in suffering - Romans
God has promised a future free of the curse - Revelation - no more defects
God demonstrated He has the ability to remove the defects: Jesus miracles in the gospels.

Quote:

---

I was going to point out quantum physics and hidden variables in response to your previous post. I think you are essentially correct in pointing out a fundamental incompatibility of randomness with a truly omnipotent and omniscient god. It's such a conflict that even the idea of allowing free will is extremely difficult (if not outright impossible see other threads) to logically justify a mechanism for that maintains knowledge of the future. Chaos is easy, it's really just a matter of relative complexity. But true randomness is a tricker thing than free will. In fact a will is just a localized determinism semi-divorced from other determinism. In such a sense it seems you could argue that god is "handing over authority" assuming he's capable of doing so.

---

I'm pretty much with you all the way here. The way I think about it, God is omniscient because He is omnipotent. Things happen because He Wills them to happen. So when other entities such as humans have free will, then His knowledge becomes limited. God can choose not to choose, and instead let a human make a choice. When that happens, He limits His own power and therefore limits His knowledge. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I honestly can't think of a way to generate randomness. Any kind of mechanism we can imagine involves some sort of order, and how can total disorder arise from any ordered process?

Quote:

---

For the quantum my understanding is that you could be Laplace's demon, and know literally everything it is possible to know about the system with some limits due to the uncertainty principle and you still will be unable to predict the outcome. But the uncertainty principle itself is just a way of saying laplace's demon can't know "everything" (as opposed to everything that can be known).

---

Quantum physics is weird, but I don't think it's a lack of God's omniscience to say that God doesn't know the position and velocity of a quantum particle. A quantum particle physically doesn't have a velocity and position at the same time. It's like saying that God isn't omniscient because He doesn't know what language the color blue smells like. It's an equally nonsensical question to ask for both qualities of a quantum particle. I would say that God knows how a quantum waveform will collapse, even though that seems random to us. Pretty much like I said above. God forces it to collapse into a certain state, so of course He knows the result

Quote:

---

House construction:
Conclusion: Designed

Human Body:
Conclusion: Not designed. A product of time, chaos, chance?

---

I think you've presented a false analogy. Because the human body and a house share a quality, you've concluded that they must share other qualities as well. I don't agree.

Quote:

---

If we cannot determine the reason, that doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist in the eyes of the designer. That answer may be something that remains a mystery depending on the information available.
Example:
If I see a building from the 1700 hundreds, I may not be able to explain why a feature exists that the builder. It could have been for a purpose, it could have been simply for his pleasure.

---

I'm open to the possibility of human un-used vestiges being found to be ultimately important or useful. However, if you have decided a priori that they are the result of a conscious decision from God, then you have taken the position that physical evidence is irrelevant. Whales have leg bones? Why? Is it reasonable to chalk this up to God's whimsy?

Quote:

---

Assuming there's no information about God or questions answered as to why things are they way they are, then this conclusion is reasonable. However the best explanation for who God is, how He's interacted in human history, and why things are they way they are have been answered to some degree.

Perfect creation without defect. - Genesis
Creation is cursed - defects are the result of the curse, not the original design. Genesis 3
Creation groans due to the defect - we see this in suffering - Romans
God has promised a future free of the curse - Revelation - no more defects
God demonstrated He has the ability to remove the defects: Jesus miracles in the gospels.

---

To be clear, a theory about God guided evolution and a literal Genesis are mutually exclusive. As I've stated before in this thread, its probably that many of us here will fundamentally disagree on what we consider to be reasonable evidence. I don't consider Genesis to be reasonable evidence. And you do. And all that means is that we aren't ever going to see eye to eye on the topic. At best, we can explain our positions to each other and respectfully agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Whales have leg bones?

---

Can you provide more on this assertion?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Whales have leg bones?

---

Can you provide more on this assertion?

---

A quick google search will show that whales and dolphins have these bones.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Whales have leg bones?

---

Can you provide more on this assertion?

---

A quick google search will show that whales and dolphins have these bones.

---

I did that search, quickly. It seems that the primary "leg" bones are actually pelvic bones which are not vestigial but are used in birthing. There are a couple/few tiny bones as well that may be vestigial or, like many other supposedly vestigial items, have a use of which we are not yet aware. I was wondering if I missed something because those two examples don't really seem to support much at all. I also did not spend a whole lot of time researching the issue.