Creation vs Evolution

Started by Shakyamunison221 pages
Originally posted by Fëanor
I like to think that creation evolved to a state utter mundane thoughts and ideas by a bunch of bored cave men. But that's just an opinion based on absolutely nothing.

😆 *gets up off the floor*

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's what she said.

I'm just wondering--isn't the process of creating more genetic information via DNA duplication contradictory to natural selection? It seems so, since those individuals with duplicated DNA (probbaly) don't show any advantage and thus waste resources by copying the extra genetic information--therefore, they would have a lesser chance of reproduction and survival.

If you are talking about polyploidy, which I suspect you are, you have a point. In animals it cannot be explained as far as I know, but in plants it is natural feasible because the genetic duplication can lie dormant for generations as it can simply self fertilize.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If you are talking about polyploidy, which I suspect you are, you have a point. In animals it cannot be explained as far as I know, but in plants it is natural feasible because the genetic duplication can lie dormant for generations as it can simply self fertilize.

Incorrect assumption...

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070416_mite_sex.html

That's different than polyploidy.

Whats going on?

Originally posted by Nellinator
If you are talking about polyploidy, which I suspect you are, you have a point. In animals it cannot be explained as far as I know, but in plants it is natural feasible because the genetic duplication can lie dormant for generations as it can simply self fertilize.

Also, polyploid plants tend to be liked by humans. Therefore, we breed them.

It does happen natural though, I think bananas are naturally quadraploidy (terminology for 4n?)

Originally posted by Nellinator
It does happen natural though, I think bananas are naturally quadraploidy (terminology for 4n?)

Also, polyploid plants may be larger, giving them the ability to "crowd out" other plants.

Larger is why we breed them that way, it works great.

...

I thought up a joke this morning.

Q: What does one call a whob-sock whose persona is an anti-gay Christian?

A:

Spoiler:
A Thundamentalist.

Wah-wah-wah.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I thought up a joke this morning.

Q: What does one call a whob-sock whose persona is an anti-gay Christian?

A:

Spoiler:
A Thundamentalist.

Wah-wah-wah.

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

Originally posted by FeceMan
I thought up a joke this morning.

Q: What does one call a whob-sock whose persona is an anti-gay Christian?

A:

Spoiler:
A Thundamentalist.

Wah-wah-wah.

😂

Darwinism (macro-evolution) is false. Claims, however, have been made stipulating that macro-evolution -- having zero evidence mind you -- is a scientific fact. Darwinists would have you believe: (A) Nothing produces everything, (B) Non-life produces life, (C) Randomness produces fine-tuning, (D) Chaos produces information, (E) Unconciousness produces conciousness, and (F) Non-reason produces reason. Simply amazing! Where do sign?

Advancements in science over the past 30 years, particularly molecular biology, has (and is) forcing scientists to objectively question the validity of Darwinian theory. Dare I say for, "obvious" reasons?!

Learn why: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
(E) Unconciousness produces conciousness,

ooooooh

ooooooooooooooooooooooh

can we please argue about this one?

Can we please note that macroevolution is not a real concept.

This is stupid. "Darwinsist" and "Darwinism" must be the two second most bastardized words by the evangelical faiths, second to "faith."

This is simply hilarious.

Originally posted by ushomefree

Learn why: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html

Same old, same old . . . . nothing new here (Irreducible complexity(!), angiosperms(!), horse evolution(!) etc.).

Just started reading Inherit the Wind in english class.
Good play.

Originally posted by Templares
Same old, same old . . . . nothing new here (Irreducible complexity(!), angiosperms(!), horse evolution(!) etc.).

My favorite part was that many of these concepts have been addressed for 60, 80, even 160 years.

I assume that many of you chose not to review the website (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html) posted with my last message. If my assumptions are incorrect, I apologize. If, however, I am right, perhaps you'll be willing to watch a movie instead? The movie consists of 8 parts, and it is very informative -- leaving nothing open to interpretation. So... grab a pen and paper! Take notes, and ask critical questions!! Get involved in all available resources in search of truth!!! Take care everyone.

The Collapse of Darwinism:

(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7F7-3E90PU

(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8Gc2RnItbA

(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIrr_yilRfY

(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgw9OmJ34o

(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhSCOJuVzes

(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVvfJMiuX7U

(7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfld2j_lTE

(8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2_xFZEtFr0