| happydolphin said: I am not sure I was covering all my angles when I wrote that, I was just expressing my opinion, but didn't cover the specific points as to why I thought that. You remind me of the rigor of the interwebz and now I'm required to explain every single detail of my thought lest it's to be called utter bullshit. Ok, let me try to see exactly what I meant by that. First, I believe abiogenesis to be virtually impossible. I watched a video about the odds of one of the DNA proteins being formed from matter and it was something absolutely silly, but as I said it's been two years. Let's just assume I have that data on hand for a sec because I'm at home just enjoying my boxing day off. Now, with abiogenesis as an unfeasible explanation given article X (again, let's just go along with the logic), I look at the complexity of the world around me as evidence for special creation. It reminds me more of the care I put into a project (art, mechanics) than anything else. When I think of laughter, or reason, these concepts are abstract and would appear to have no bearing in terms of survival. Seeing as how so few people actually make use of their sense of humor, I'm not sure exactly how such a gene (if it exists) survives. There isn't much more to it. If I see a plane, I will think that someone made it. It's not much different from when I look at humans and the beauty and complexity of our world. I personally don't believe such complexity of structure (cell, animals, insects) comes at random. Then, add to that the idea of inbreeding and how is it possible, if inbreeding leads to deformities, how is it possible in an embryonic species? In summary, there are many reasons for me to believe in an intentful designer rather than random unguided complexity in our world, and also many limitations to the genesis of new species given the working of breeding as seen today. Also, infused complexity makes more sense given those constraints (inbreeding, incompatibility of breeding between species). |
No one cares what you believe, you've proven yourself entirely irrelevant with your lack of evidence to support your positions. The scientific consensus is that abiogensis is how we came to be, you're free to believe that or not. You're also free to believe that gravity isn't real, that Earth is flat, Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead, and that Atlas carries the Earth on his back.
Inbreeding doesn't always lead to deformities...again you show a fundamental misunderstanding. There is a higher risk of deformity, that is all.
You can breed between species if the genus is the same...prime example: Mule is the product of a male donkey and a female horse.
Conway's game of Life. Quite simple, but based upon given initial generations can lead to quite astounding patterns.
