Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

the universe was once a singularity and in an extremely perfect state. there was no chaos at all. it wasnt to hot or too cold. it was too light or too dark. it was nothing. in fact, it was boring.

then it changed. the universe became something else. rather than remaining in one perfect state, the universe decided to explore its billions of other possibilities that it could become. the universe fell into chaos.

shortly after the big bang, hydrogen was the predominant element in the universe with traces of helium and lithium. however, these three elements alone are not enough to create complex life. the human body contains many many more natural elements.

over billions of years, the universe has continued to fall into chaos while creating a host of new possibilities. in our case, the universe has continued to create heavier and heavier elements which made our existence possible.

its complexity from chaos in a thermodynamic system...

you know, its kind of like everything that exists in the universe was once a superfluid created by the density of a singularity. its probably not a surprise that the cosmic radiation background is around 3 kelvin...



Last Edited by Edge Rider on 09/30/2012 01:19 PM

[link to www.youtube.com]

so we see a lot of symbiosis here which could be argued originates from intelligent design. but it also could be argued that these are successful designs that occurred randomly in nature and perpetuate because they work. bad design will probably not perpetuate.

randomness does not create amazingly complex self-replicating machinery. intelligence does that.

well, then what intelligence created us? and what intelligence created the creator? and what intelligence created the creators, creator? and so on...

and i have made amazingly complex self-replicating machinery myself. shes 17 now...

Maybe we need to use simpler words so you can understand:

Gene damaged. Gene changed. Little worm live longer healthier life.

Understand words? Understand healthy worm live longer? Not understand, still?

Words hard for you. Mutation make worm better. Scientists see mutation make worm better.

Thoughts are hard for you, too apparently. If you can change one species into another, then -step by step - you can change any living thing into any other living thing.

Because it's just genes and DNA and it's step by step.

Sure, and I suppose, just by incredible coincidence, every single beneficial mutation we observe in an organism is in that 'loss of function' phase, before they move on to adding all sorts of amazing genetic complexity, right?

Actually, no. Read some John Cage and Brian Eno. The perception of music can easily be decoupled from the intention of music.

OP, is it really too much to ask that you learn something about evolution before dismissing it?

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:16

By faith we understand that time was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are invisible.

Hebrews 11:3


Two possible references in the Bible to the cellular and molecular world.

Creation is made up of "things" that we can not see.

Isn't it interesting that these "ignorant goat herders" were able to come up with such a concept that was proven correct several millenia later.




Reminds me of this verse:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Job 26:7

Yet another 'coincidence' that this scientific fact about the earth being suspended in empty space was conceived back then as well.

lol
I don't fully believe evolution, but you are actually making a GREAT case for it.

I am going to have to ask you to expand, again.

What do you think would be the morphology of a species "crossing over," and in what way is that not seen in the fossil record?

What do you mean by "unique organisms" and in what way do you believe the fossil record shows only such? I mean, as a starter, you have to be aware that most historical species are represented by more than one fossil, and in addition, there is variation within that species recorded in existing fossil remains.

And I would hope you would be aware that there are different degrees of similarity between fossil species; there is less difference between trilobites of the early Devonian and the late Permian, than between any species of trilobite and any individual anomolacaris.

So although each species is (by definition) unique, some species are more unique than others. At no point in the recorded history of Earth is it impossible to make groups of plausible associations.





Please read something published later than 1861. I have seen the Berlin specimen and it is a lovely creature, but there have been dozens of fossils from that species ALONE discovered since. Plus quite a few other feathered specimens (if you want to focus just on feathers, which would really be a stupid way to chart the development of modern birds, but skeletal morphology seems to be too subtle and complex for Creationist minds.)



But this brings up an interesting question. Is it your view that transitional species must look like a crocoduck? That they need to have clear and distinct simultaneous morphologies of species separated by millions of years of evolution?

And since you seem to believe that archeopteryx is one of those chimera (it is not), are you then claiming that the Berlin specimen, and all other fossils of this species, are fakes? Because otherwise you have just admitted into existence something you earlier swore didn't exist AT ALL.

This seems rather dishonest.

Yes, people do.

That's the difficulty of arguing for a splinter belief. Unlike the mainstream, you don't have a single consistent shared reality.

Each and every creationist believes their own unique blend. So it is necessary to ask each and every one which parts of reality they include.

I was not aware that 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase was a "loss of function." This novel enzyme functioned perfectly well and allowed bacteria which otherwise would have died off to thrive, instead.

Why are you putting forth this non-sequitor? One's perception of music does not change its origin.

Out of all genetic mutations we've ever observed, is this the only example you have?

fairies are real.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Why Abiogenesis and all its related storytelling is nonsense.

The point is that music can arise from non-intelligent processes.

Of course we recognize it as music, thus putting intelligence in the loop. But one could easily imagine...in fact, it has been done...designing a program that recognizes elements typical of music.

But, although this is an interesting digression, the only point I wanted to make is that music can and has arisen without the intelligence you demand.

Why would you assume that?

It is the first that comes to mind, and a good one in that is almost entirely free of any extraneous details. A single protein that has been shown to be novel (as in, the coding for this protein exists in NO part of the original organism's DNA -- "junk" included), arrived at through a common and well-understood mutation, and one that would never have been of use to any organism until the modern age (as in, there was no nylon-6 to eat!)

It is also a lab-observed mutation, meaning there is no inference from related species or fossil history to distance it.

The story of, say, the sickle-cell mutation, or the lactase persistence genes (the failure to turn off one of the enzymes used in early childhood, a condition endemic in the Western world but less common elsewhere) are more complex.

Argument et youtubium.

The 'loss of function' involved with daf-2 was having a short life long with the decay of aging.

Living longer with better health isn't an improvement? Really? It's a loss of function?

The Japanese identified a new bacteria that can eat nylon waste. Nylon didn't exist until the 1930's so the bacteria evolved after that to eat nylon leftovers.

i see science as a means of discovering the complexities of his creation.

scientist discover new things all the time but it was always there waiting to be discovered.



a printer can print out its own blueprints of its design but the original blueprints need to exist first before the printer can ever be made.

it was designed just like everything around us and all we see is designed and anything designed requires a designer.

God and the Scientist
God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,

"God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing - in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.

Carl Sagan, an outspoken agnostic, beat you to that joke with a better one.

Which is why we celebrate him with fresh-made (but NOT scratch-made) apple pie.

I'm just trying to figure out if the evolutionists' entire case for novel mutations comes down to an enzyme produced by nylon-eating bacteria. (interestingly enough, arrived at through an intelligently designed product that was not even around during the timeframe it took for plants to supposedly evolve into humans)

lol God knows that we cant create matter nor destroy it... we are only allowed to change in what ways some things are organized.

on Endogenous Retroviruses (Transposable DNA elements), which evolutionists repeatedly claim is direct evidence for common descent.

New research shows that they can have a direct effect on early cellular development.

Transposable Elements Key in Embryo Development

Evolutionists once thought that transposable DNA elements, also called jumping genes, were merely the ancestral vestiges of viruses that maliciously infested and bloated the genomes of plants and animals. However, the past several decades of research have clearly shown that transposable elements play a large diversity of key roles in the genome.(1) A recent study in the journal Nature has shown that transposable elements are now absolutely required for the very beginnings of animal life in the earliest stages of embryo development.(2)

In mammals, a cell called a zygote is formed when the sperm and egg are joined in fertilization. This is the earliest developmental stage of a new embryo. Before cells in the developing embryo fully differentiate to form various tissues and their cell fate is determined, they go through a stage in which they are considered totipotent—they have the capacity to develop into just about any type of cell in the body.

When the female egg cell becomes fertilized, the maternal genome and resulting nucleus becomes completely reprogrammed. Newly synthesized RNA transcripts (copies of DNA segments) unique to the zygotic genome immediately populate and program the cell nucleus for life's initial stages. A key feature of this activity that has been discovered in the mouse genome involves a specific type of transposable element named MuERV-L. This transposable element is uniquely active in the totipotent cell phase that is critical to forming all of the other cells in the mouse embryo.

During zygote genome function, a network of developmental genes depends on MuERV-L to activate their promoter regions. This creates the totipotent cell state. This gene network is silenced as development progresses.

The fact that this transposable element is essential to proper development in mice illustrates how evolutionary thinking once incorrectly interpreted these genetic features. Other studies have also demonstrated the critical involvement of various classes of transposable element DNA during other stages of both embryo development and pregnancy.(3,4) Far from being useless genetic leftovers, transposable DNAs are central to life.

It is now hard to believe that these critical and functional pieces of the genome were once thought to be nothing but the meaningless relics of ancient viruses. Clearly, they are uniquely designed and highly-engineered pieces of DNA programmed by God the Creator.

- Jeffrey Tomkins PhD Genetics

[link to designed-dna.org]