kevin the wiiite said:
ManusJustus said:
If you want to understand science you are going to have to stop going to the religious conferences in crazy town. Limbs or lungs just don't pop into an species genome, its takes a long time for a gene to slowly change.
Just look at the fossil record. You can easily see humans, horses, you name it slowly changing over millions of years. No new limbs or eyes, just changes to the expression of these genes. But how do complex organs like eyes develop? The same way, just with more time (and faster generation lifecycles don't hurt). Eyes use to be light-sensitive cells, the same process that even the simplest of organisms have today as its actually a very common stimuli. Over millions and millions of years those light sensitive cells continued to develop into something more and more complex.
Please, before you go any further with the science, explain your reasoning for the slowly changing fossil record to me.
|
Great, you just insulted the best geneticists in the world. I'm pretty sure the head of the human genome project was there. No, the conference wasn't out of crazy town. It was an exposition of programs that display genetic data in laymans terms. They didn't do the math there, but they gave some simple numbers.
I'm pretty sure most of that post wasn't said at any real genetics conference, because it fundamentally misunderstands genetics. Perhaps the 300 mutations per 6B base pairs is the bit that was real, the entire thing about how they have to be strung along one after the other was complete rubbish.
The way you're saying things evolve would infer that multiple systems were evolving at the same time, and the fossil record (the way you see it) clearly shows organ systems evolving at different times.
This just isn't true, the fossil record clearly shows that animals evolved as a whole. Man didn't start walking on two legs and then grow a bigger brain, both things evolved at the same time.
Also, the entire time the systems are evolving parts of them would be nonfunctional, and we definitely don't see fossils of animals with multiple nonfunctional organ systems, let alone one.
Once again you don't understand evolution. At no point in evolution is an evolving organ non-functional - at every point the organ is slightly more functional in its environment than it was in the last iteration. See the picture I posted on the evolution of the eye for example.
And yes, the earth isn't a closed system, but the universe definitely is. Conservation of Energy anyone? Sorters have a designer, which allows them to increase entropy. The sorter itself still breaks down over time because it itself needs a sorter. Hey look, now we just have to settle the infinite aliens theory. Don't really consider worthy of logical discussion.
Two things, the universe is a closed system and therefore the entropy of the whole universe needs to increase. There can be pockets within the universe of decreasing entropy.
Also the second law of thermodynamics applies to sorters as well, and sorters don't break the law (once again due to the closed system thing).
|
