Originally posted by ushomefreeThis is one of the main reasons that I think a lot of people have issues with evolution is that they think that a dog will change into a frog all of a sudden which has nothing to do with evolution. It is easy to see what the smallest of changes to the DNA can do just by looking at a man and a chimp, our DNA is almost 99% the same and you see all the vast differences between the two. Most mammals have very similar DNA and it only takes a change of a few strands to completely change an animal to “something else”.
Immunity has nothing to do with this issue. Viruses remain viruses.Every organism on the face of the planet evolves in the traditional sense, but nothing morphs into something entirely new (containing brand new genetic information and raw material). To build a bridge over the problem, Darwinists commonly speak of genetic mutation. Yes, genetic mutation does occur in nature, but not in the fashion that Darwinists would have you believe.
Genetic mutations are simply errors within the "pre-existing" DNA code. Such does not introduce "brand new" information; hence no new raw material.
For example, genetic mutations produce infants born attached at the head, frogs born with 3 (frog) legs and fruit-flies born with (fruit-fly) legs growing out of their heads.
If genetic mutation were true in the sense that Darwinists propose, we would see, for example, fruit-flies being born with brand new raw material -- material unknown/new to the anatomy of a fruit-fly.
Let me explain by analogy:
You can not build a bicycle into a motorcycle. You can re-arrange, delete, and/or duplicate the building instruction of the bicycle (until a purple unicorn or a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich spontaneously generates in your living room); such will not bring abound oil and gas pumps, pistons, ignition systems and disk brakes. Never will you produce a motorcycle, only a genetically mutated bicycle.
Such does not occur at Harley Davidson manufacturing plants, and it does not occur in nature.
This is simply not true. Creationists, when talking about information, are referring to DNA, not to mention it's function. It is Darwinists who are vague, branding grand ideas and wishful thinking as Science. Everybody wants their government grants and lobby funds. It is all about money!
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThat will not evolve 😉
😆 Don't read it! It's meant to be a mind virus for ushomefree.
"It is said that we share about 60% of our genes with a banana." 😆
Originally posted by Da PittmanThis is one of the main reasons that I think a lot of people have issues with evolution is that they think that a dog will change into a frog all of a sudden which has nothing to do with evolution. It is easy to see what the smallest of changes to the DNA can do just by looking at a man and a chimp, our DNA is almost 99% the same and you see all the vast differences between the two. Most mammals have very similar DNA and it only takes a change of a few strands to completely change an animal to “something else.”
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.
Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.
You are putting value onto things that nature may not value.
Originally posted by ushomefreeHow is my information false, it is well proven that our DNA is 99% similar to that of a chimp. It is also well proven that just a simple change in just one strand of DNA will have great effects on the organism, so how is this wrong? The differences between a man and chimp you just proved, that this 1% change between our DNA and that of a chimp has such a HUGE difference in biological appearance and function. Even with the banana quote shows the difference in just 40%, so why would a designer of all things make the DNA the same for a plant as they do for animals and much less humans?
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.
Originally posted by ushomefree
False Shaky... I'm putting value on what nature demonstrates. Big difference!
Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYou could say that it could be a disadvantage now, a dog is not going to develop a super virus that could wipe out its entire species. 😉
Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone.
Originally posted by ushomefreeSay what? So you think you are vastly more intelligent than all of us? I see that being humble is not encoded in your DNA but since DNA doesn't get any new information then we all have the same gene so that would just make you rude by your own design. 😉
See... this is precisely why I'd like to debate someone, ha ha! This is overkill. I can't keep up.
Now that is overkill 😈
Originally posted by ushomefree
See... this is precisely why I'd like to debate someone, ha ha! This is overkill. I can't keep up.
you can't give working definitions of what it is you are trying to argue or what it is that would be convincing evidence in favor of evolution...
how the hell do you expect to debate anyone?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
You could say that it could be a disadvantage now, a dog is not going to develop a super virus that could wipe out its entire species. 😉
Dogs also can't develop defenses againt super-viruses that might wipe out their entire species. There are very few conditions where intelligence is a handicap.
Just read the article (at your leisure): The Origin of Man. And it contains a bibliography for future research.
I didn't write the dang thing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dogs also can't develop defenses againt super-viruses that might wipe out their entire species. There are very few conditions where intelligence is a handicap.
brain tissue is incredibly expensive, with regards to resources and energy consumption, when compared to other tissue.
In situations where food, especially sugars, are scarce, the development of brain areas for higher intelligence could be disadvantageous (which is seen in Africa at the same time as human evolution; most other animals in that time and place were losing brain size).
The same goes on an individual basis. If there were that bad of a food scarcity on the planet, people with more brain tissue would require more, thus being more likely to die off.
however, intelligence allows one to try and compensate, so it would be a really interesting experiment to run.... I need like 2000 volunteers...