Andrespetmonkey said:
Dr.Grass said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
mhsillen said:
I look at it that the creator is a powerful scientific being. He is not some mystical being. He uses scientific laws to create and if it was the big bang he used then so be it. But whatever you believe it is never wise to ignore other ideas contrary to your beliefs. It is not absurd to look at living things and think these are so complicated it must of been planned and built by a intelligent being.
It sounds like the sharks are adapting not turning into geese. Adaptation happens all the time. |
Liked your post until I read that, makes you sound a little ignorant. You have to consider those small adaptions accumulating over the space of billions of years. And even if you personally can't visualize it, it's been well supported by the fossil record and confirmed by DNA sequencing. Not specifically "sharks turning into geese" ofcourse but macro-evolution as a whole.
|
Everyone gets this point.
But sir, if science is so advanced then why won't a pumpkin ever go past a certain size (both ways) ? Why does artificial selection always hit a breaking point (fruit fly experiments etc.)? And don't tell me that in the future someone will come and breed a functional advantage... I want to see a new biological device built from the ground up through random changes - I really do.
|
No, not everyone gets this point actually.
The fact that you're on a computer shows you how incredibly advanced science is, but that's besides the point. "Always hit a breaking point", and you base this on the fruit fly experiments? Even with the rapidly evolving fruit flys macro-evolution would still take thousands of years instead of millions, and that's only if those severe and rapid adaptions are needed. So what is this breaking point? And it's also your job to now explain all the other evidence for macro-evolution, like the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals, the clear pattern shown in the fossil record (If your gonna give me "gaps in the fossil record" reply then I hope you know it's been rtt) of common decent between different species. Why do we share DNA with a banana?
"I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes", while chance places a large role in it, this ignores the fundemental role of natural selection. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, and this is what natural selection works with; it sorts out certain variations... "Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different
variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go)."
|
''... the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals'',
Just because it's light doesn't mean the sun's shining...
A Volkswagen is sharing almost identical structure to a BMW, but does this reveal anything at all about their respective origins and relationship? Using this evidence just means that you are not willing to accept any alternative.
... you have to admit that there is no proposeable theory that would satisfy the mental state of the current breed of scientists. I mean, do you really want to hear my explanation of the origins of life? Most probably not. More importantly, when I start explaining the typical response is, ''Is this Hindu, Buddhist, new-age blah blah etc.''. Ultimately the 'label' I give it has much more to do with your interpretation than the actual explanation.
''...the clear pattern shown in the fossil record...''
This is one of the poorests pieces of evidence and probably one of the few true scientific conspiracies. There are TONS of archives FILLED with finds that contradict the evolutionary viewpoint. Take an open mind to the literature and you will find mathematicians, archeologists, geologists, etc. that are shunned from scientific respectability due to simply presenting what they find... Mary Leaky? Forbidden Archeology...
This one is only beaten by the Aryan-invasion theory (clear proof how broken academia is) in the 'propaganda' category.
''Why do we share DNA with a banana? ''
Common heritage.
''I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes'' ''
WUT. Please don't tell me I don't know how evolution works. The above mechanic is the integral part of building up new organisms.
