7xstall
Well-Known Member
let me just say first off that i'm not out to disprove the theory of evolution. evolution isn't "proven". it is, in my opinion, a wildly irrational, unrealistic and statistically unlikely phenomenon. a great number of scientists have deemed the task of finding supporting evidence so important that they mislead the public and taint the integrity of research to further an anti-God agenda; an emotional, social agenda. the only true purpose of science is to find evidence - proof or disproof is subjective whereas facts are facts. as of right now there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution, no facts.
just want to clear that up.
without getting too technical/boring, i want to show some of the major weaknesses of the theory of evolution and highlight extreme flaws, if not absurdities, in this theory which was eventually abandoned by its creator even before many of these errors were being observed. with the completed mapping of the human genome the prospect of finding evidence supporting evolution is much much smaller. before the mapping was completed it was assumed that there were approx 120,000 separate genes in human DNA. this number was arrived at by dissecting the "human species" into genetic traits, eye color, skin color, hair, predisposition to diseases, on and on. the result of mapping astounded everyone. there are only approx. 40,000 genes in human DNA, one third of what we predicted and the obvious implication is that DNA is far far more efficient than we ever imagined. either, one gene can control more than one trait or there is a highly advanced (i'm really understating this) pattern in the arrangment of genes which yields individual traits. the plot thickens and the notion that it all came into being by chance is becoming less likely than the prospect of hearing a couple of Bach's melodies come from a trumpet that's being sucked into a tornado.
on with the fun...
"even if u say 'adaptability is built in to DNA', (thats a vague, poorly worded statement, imo.) assuming that evolution doesnt happen because of that is absurd."
i'm no english teacher, i have no problem admitting my lack of eloquence! i'm actually kind of happy with it but most people just assume that i'm being arrogant when i don't make myself clear, the only bad part is that i have no idea i'm not being clear... when you combine ADD with other "variables" it can make for some interesting statements for sure.
i will try to clarify what i can.
what i mean here is that we have a huge range of adaptability built in already, we know this. if we place the burden of creating this "range" on evolution we discount evolution automatically. evolution is the idea that new survival traits occur and result in some advantage, correct? how did the trait to gain traits come into existence? this would require "foreknowledge" would it not? since when does happenstance collaborate with previous givens and result in accurate predictions? now, if you are still holding on to the idea that evolution makes sense then apply this same scenario of anticipatory trait generation to each and every life form, not only to the species alive today but the millions that are extinct. which raises another question. why do we have fewer life forms today than we did at any given point in history? the further back you go in fossil records the richer the life history of this planet becomes. that's odd, if it all started with one organism, don't you think? it also seems odd to me that evolution would plateau, or stall out, for the 5,000+ years of written human history we have. if you blindly trust C14 dating then you can see that, genetically speaking, we haven't changed one bit in dozens upon dozens of millennia. why?
"ill be honest, i have no idea what ur talkin about. im not even stoned, and that seems like a foreign language. maybe this was based on something i missed in a previous post?"
we are forcing the bacteria to use whatever traits they have which will allow them to survive our medications. selection pressure is what allows certain plants to become resistant to herbicides also... it happens all the time. like when you pack a bowl the screen only lets smoke through, we're letting the good parts of the life forms we target through our chemical "screens". make sense?
"to be technical, i started as two cells, but w/e. i was pretty much saying that if bacteria can evolve, so can we. im quite ignorant when it comes to microbiology, so ill withdrawal any statement ive made based on it. guess this is what i get for listening to Skunk."
ok, almost got me there. you were two cells that were each half of one cell. when they joined, a brand new human cell, with all 46 chromosomes (hopefully!) came into being. but yes, if we ever see bacteria evolve it's fair to believe that so can any other life form, we haven't seen it yet - evolution remains a theory. what we do see are traits that are already in the DNA, nothing new. the term evolution is apparently being used to describe something other than a spontaneous, genetic change that results in a new survival advantage, this is improper use of the term.
"i dont know what ur getting at. u seem to have a large vocabulary, so u might be a smart dude so ill assume ur not a dumbass. but are u asking if a school of thought has grown by itself?"
i appreciate not being thought a dumbass. if you can get my wife on board we'll be set and i'll buy you a lifetime supply of your favorite munchy foods.
again, i didn't do a good job putting my point into words. what i am asking is, where does the universe ever create something more complex? where do we observe things becoming more and not less complex? the immensely complex systems which make up life have no comparison in the known universe, the complexity which is life goes against the system, this is my point, and you will never find an example of the universe creating molecular complexity without the help of life itself.
"germs evolve"
we've never seen this happen, the theory of evolution has no supporting evidence SKH.
"Cells can and do mutate, which is why we all have individual dna."
we have never seen a cellular mutation that benefits the cell. every observed mutation in scientific history results in a less effective life form, in people, plants, everything. your body will actually attack and destroy it's own mutations, it happens everyday. some of these survive and cause cancer.
this (concept of mutation) is where the wild card comes into play also, and though this might bore you, people who say that a virus mutates do not understand what a virus is. a virus does not reproduce itself, it hijacks another organisms' replication hardware and copies itself until the organism dies. when a genetic change happens to a virus it is affecting a protein called RNA which is essentially half of a DNA.. a viral RNA chain is also much shorter than most DNA chains and carries fewer "traits". when the virus takes over and instructs the cell to begin creating copies of itself, it tells the cell to go as fast as possible, imagine an assembly line with a brawny foreman standing over each worker yelling at him to hurry up. this results in sloppy workmanship and because there are fewer "traits" one little error makes for a huge change in viral RNA. this is why a virus is far more likely to experience and benefit from a "transcription error".
just want to clear that up.
without getting too technical/boring, i want to show some of the major weaknesses of the theory of evolution and highlight extreme flaws, if not absurdities, in this theory which was eventually abandoned by its creator even before many of these errors were being observed. with the completed mapping of the human genome the prospect of finding evidence supporting evolution is much much smaller. before the mapping was completed it was assumed that there were approx 120,000 separate genes in human DNA. this number was arrived at by dissecting the "human species" into genetic traits, eye color, skin color, hair, predisposition to diseases, on and on. the result of mapping astounded everyone. there are only approx. 40,000 genes in human DNA, one third of what we predicted and the obvious implication is that DNA is far far more efficient than we ever imagined. either, one gene can control more than one trait or there is a highly advanced (i'm really understating this) pattern in the arrangment of genes which yields individual traits. the plot thickens and the notion that it all came into being by chance is becoming less likely than the prospect of hearing a couple of Bach's melodies come from a trumpet that's being sucked into a tornado.
on with the fun...
"even if u say 'adaptability is built in to DNA', (thats a vague, poorly worded statement, imo.) assuming that evolution doesnt happen because of that is absurd."
i'm no english teacher, i have no problem admitting my lack of eloquence! i'm actually kind of happy with it but most people just assume that i'm being arrogant when i don't make myself clear, the only bad part is that i have no idea i'm not being clear... when you combine ADD with other "variables" it can make for some interesting statements for sure.
i will try to clarify what i can.what i mean here is that we have a huge range of adaptability built in already, we know this. if we place the burden of creating this "range" on evolution we discount evolution automatically. evolution is the idea that new survival traits occur and result in some advantage, correct? how did the trait to gain traits come into existence? this would require "foreknowledge" would it not? since when does happenstance collaborate with previous givens and result in accurate predictions? now, if you are still holding on to the idea that evolution makes sense then apply this same scenario of anticipatory trait generation to each and every life form, not only to the species alive today but the millions that are extinct. which raises another question. why do we have fewer life forms today than we did at any given point in history? the further back you go in fossil records the richer the life history of this planet becomes. that's odd, if it all started with one organism, don't you think? it also seems odd to me that evolution would plateau, or stall out, for the 5,000+ years of written human history we have. if you blindly trust C14 dating then you can see that, genetically speaking, we haven't changed one bit in dozens upon dozens of millennia. why?
"ill be honest, i have no idea what ur talkin about. im not even stoned, and that seems like a foreign language. maybe this was based on something i missed in a previous post?"
we are forcing the bacteria to use whatever traits they have which will allow them to survive our medications. selection pressure is what allows certain plants to become resistant to herbicides also... it happens all the time. like when you pack a bowl the screen only lets smoke through, we're letting the good parts of the life forms we target through our chemical "screens". make sense?
"to be technical, i started as two cells, but w/e. i was pretty much saying that if bacteria can evolve, so can we. im quite ignorant when it comes to microbiology, so ill withdrawal any statement ive made based on it. guess this is what i get for listening to Skunk."
ok, almost got me there. you were two cells that were each half of one cell.
when they joined, a brand new human cell, with all 46 chromosomes (hopefully!) came into being. but yes, if we ever see bacteria evolve it's fair to believe that so can any other life form, we haven't seen it yet - evolution remains a theory. what we do see are traits that are already in the DNA, nothing new. the term evolution is apparently being used to describe something other than a spontaneous, genetic change that results in a new survival advantage, this is improper use of the term."i dont know what ur getting at. u seem to have a large vocabulary, so u might be a smart dude so ill assume ur not a dumbass. but are u asking if a school of thought has grown by itself?"
i appreciate not being thought a dumbass. if you can get my wife on board we'll be set and i'll buy you a lifetime supply of your favorite munchy foods.
again, i didn't do a good job putting my point into words. what i am asking is, where does the universe ever create something more complex? where do we observe things becoming more and not less complex? the immensely complex systems which make up life have no comparison in the known universe, the complexity which is life goes against the system, this is my point, and you will never find an example of the universe creating molecular complexity without the help of life itself.
"germs evolve"
we've never seen this happen, the theory of evolution has no supporting evidence SKH.
"Cells can and do mutate, which is why we all have individual dna."
we have never seen a cellular mutation that benefits the cell. every observed mutation in scientific history results in a less effective life form, in people, plants, everything. your body will actually attack and destroy it's own mutations, it happens everyday. some of these survive and cause cancer.
this (concept of mutation) is where the wild card comes into play also, and though this might bore you, people who say that a virus mutates do not understand what a virus is. a virus does not reproduce itself, it hijacks another organisms' replication hardware and copies itself until the organism dies. when a genetic change happens to a virus it is affecting a protein called RNA which is essentially half of a DNA.. a viral RNA chain is also much shorter than most DNA chains and carries fewer "traits". when the virus takes over and instructs the cell to begin creating copies of itself, it tells the cell to go as fast as possible, imagine an assembly line with a brawny foreman standing over each worker yelling at him to hurry up. this results in sloppy workmanship and because there are fewer "traits" one little error makes for a huge change in viral RNA. this is why a virus is far more likely to experience and benefit from a "transcription error".
