Reply With Quote
Doubtful you'll restrain yourself that long, but ok cowardly pussy.
See ya after the Superbowl, adios~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doubtful you'll restrain yourself that long, but ok cowardly pussy.
Where is the DNA evidence that there is progression?
Avante STFU.
You make everyone that doesn't believe in Evolution 100% look re ed.
Hmm, it might be helpful if you would expand a bit by what you mean when you say "progression".
One thing to bear in mind is that, despite what one might see in movies, there is nothing that we are evolving towards. Evolution, at a very basic level is just about change. The ac ulation of those changes over time interacting with the environment causes the evolution that we see in the fossile record.
The only thing that comes out (progresses?) of the process really is that things that make organisms more likely to survive to reproduce are kept. That can be the addition, change in, or even the deletion of a gene.
Somewhere in our evolution, our ancestors lost a lot of genes in the make up of our eyes, because our ancestors were apparently nocternal. Our current eyes are actually rather clumsy from an engineering standpoint because of that.
I would also note, that DNA is not a permanent thing. It is a long chain organic molecule that will break down over about 50,000 years or so, once it becomes inert in a dead cell, even under the most ideal of conditions.
What we can do, and have done, is look at "living fossils", or surviving species of much earlier eras, and sequenced those genes to compare them to what came after those organisms.
We have also, especially since we have started sequencing whole genomes, really begun to crack the specific coding that gets turned into form and substance at the level of organisms. We do this by looking at the available fossils, and using anatomical comparisons, such as the addition or delection of an organ or appendage.
The evidence of things evolving and changing over time is buried in there, and even if we don't have DNA from 100 million years ago, we can still see the fingerprints of various changes over time in the echos of modern organisms.
One good example is that humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other primates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
Ordinarily, the loss of an entire genome (i.e. gene deletion) is fatal. If evolution were not true, that is not a problem, i.e. we were made that way.
Evolutionary theory, though, would predict that the most likely cause is fusion of two chromosomes. The material is still there, it just is all in one place.
That prediction was borne out when we started sequencing the genes of humans, and comparing them to our closes cousins, chimpanzees.
Hope that helps a bit. I was guessing at what you mean by "progression", so if that didn't answer your question exactly, expand on it a bit, and I will try again.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-27-2015 at 12:31 PM. Reason: added a bit of clarity.
Here is a bit on "living fossils":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
These types of organisms are often held up by people eager to prove some creating diety.
"look, if we are really evolving, why are these ancient things still alive, shouldn't they have evolved?"
The answer to that relates somewhat to your question. If a creature is well adapted to its environment, it will stick around, unless something comes along that out competes it.
Evolution does not posit that things can't remain unchanged. These creatures probably had groups splinter off due to some changes, but are still around through sheer chance, with the odds stacked in their favor by being well-adapted.
This hits on another common misconception:
Evolution is NOT fully random. Mutations, a part of the process are random, but natural selection is not. Natural selection will act in ways that reduce randomness, by selecting out bad things, and encouraging good things (bad and good from a reproducibility standpoint).
Anyhoo, lunch is over. Thanks for reading, hope it provided a bit of clarity. If you want some more links to stuff to read to expand on this, I will be happy to do a bit of legwork.
How's that and be specific.
Why the butterfly?
Rofl, re .
So you totally ignore the DNA situation, right?
I believe I addressed what I thought he was meaning in a previous post. What do you think didn't get addressed? Try to be as specific as you can, if you think something got ignored.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-27-2015 at 08:51 PM.
Well according to everything I've read/videos you haven't a clue.
So, you are going to plead lazy on this too?
Shocker.
All I asked is for you to expend a bit of effort explaining something in your own words, so I can answer. Apparently that is too much? Really?
Again, I will ask:
What exactly do you think I am ignoring? Kind of hard to criticize someone for not reading minds, innit?
I;m not going to try and search out where it's at, ok? You played off DNA as if it didn't take a Designer. How can anyone believe that?
Where did something that complex originate?
your problem is you believe some 8 minute long youtube clips can subs ute years of formal education
Well actually I have no problem. Show me anything that points towards DNA coming about by chance. Come on, show me. DNA had to be engineered, and it's real obvious, only a fool wouldn't see that.
Pick up a science book, re .
Where did a creator that complex originate?
Logic fail.
I'm not asking you to research anything.
I am asking you to explain what you think isn't being addressed.
Still not sure whether you are being too lazy to type it, or not intelligent enough to understand the question.
At this point, I am leaning both.
Another ing re ed logical fail.
Ok, I'm with Blake, you are a ing idiot. I have pointed out this particular bit of stupidity over and over, yet you keep licking it back up like a dog to his vomit, and throwing up back here as if you proved anything other than your inability to grasp simple concepts.Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is subs uted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
In this case, the burden of proof lies on someone who says:Fallacy: Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise.
"it had to be a creator"
"prove it wasn't a creator" is asking someone to prove a negative, an especially stupid way of trying to justify believing something.
"prove that the water isn't magic"
"prove unicorns don't exist"
"prove that jesus didn't cause his face to appear on this tortilla"
but education is so hard...
Look at this ing idiot, hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doesn't this dumb realize I've already read all about DNA. It doesn't come about without a Designer and it's totally....OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Never seen so many idiots in one place before, wow!
who designed the Designer's DNA?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
