by Diogenesister 61 Replies latest forum links
Hi new folks, lurkers and trolls. I thought I would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:
Comparative anatomy
Embryology
DNA evidence
Fossil evidence
Distribution of species
So for a straight forward introduction to the subject You can watch it Here
Very instructive video!
None of that disproves creation.
And evolution has never dealt with the sexes. If animals were unisex, then how could some cells decide that it would be better to form a penis? For what purpose? Because in other animals cells were mutating to form vaginas and they would work together. But those cells can't communicate so how could they work that all out?
How could mammary glands develop? Did cells have their DNA mutate to form them because it was good for the newborn young to have a way to eat before they had teeth? But those cells couldn't comprehend that.
It's not because something don't disprove creation, than creation is the "by default" scheme.
Because NOTHING, never will prove creation!
Where did all the information in DNA come from? Heck, where did DNA come from? It alone is a masterpiece of engineering. Can Rocks bumping together in an ocean do this?
The discovery of DNA was the end of this outdated theory for a lot of folks.
Rocks bumping is not satisfying theory. You're right. Nobody believes in rock bumping anyway..
Just give a more accurate, proven theory...
Evolution does not describe how life began, which is abiogenesis.
Strictly speaking one could accept evolution and still believe in a god or gods, although evolution pretty much destroys a literal interpretation of the bible, for example.
To answer your question about sexual reproduction, initially daughter cells would divide from their mothers....sexual reproduction came much later. I found this in Wiki
Sexual reproduction must offer significant fitness advantages to a species because despite the two-fold cost of sex, it dominates among multicellular forms of life, implying that the fitness of offspring produced outweighs the costs. Sexual reproduction derives from recombination, where parent genotypes are reorganized and shared with the offspring. This stands in contrast to single-parent asexual replication, where the offspring is identical to the parents. Recombination supplies two fault-tolerance mechanisms at the molecular level: recombinational DNA repair (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time) and complementation (also known as heterosis, hybrid vigor or masking of mutations).
Charles Darwin explained that "Hybrid vigour ( complimentation) is amply sufficient for the genisis of two sexes"
Also I fail to see how DNA disproves evolution. Could you explain?
Because NOTHING, never will prove creation!
How did you come to that conclusion? Think about it:
Fact: All life comes from a previous life
Fact: All information comes from a mind
Fact: All books have authors
[Quote]: A few years ago Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Both had been evolutionists and lifelong atheists. After making certain assumptions about the requirements for the origin of the simplest cell imaginable, they calculated the probability of the necessary protein enzymes arising by chance on this planet in five billion years. The probability turned out to be one chance out of the number one followed by 40,000 zeros! 41 [That's more molecules that there are in the universe]
This is flatly zero, so they calculated the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe, assuming that every star in the universe (about 100 billion times 100 billion) has a planet like the earth and that the universe is 20 billion years old. For all practical purposes, according to their results the probability is not insensibly different than zero.
Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747! One is free to believe that, of course, but it should not be called science.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are now saying that wherever life exists in the universe it had to be created. Wickramasinghe has stated that this evidence constitutes empirical evidence for the existence of God (they are not biblical creationists, since neither believes the Genesis account of creation, but they believe life had to be created).
Did Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe become creationists because of their religion? Obviously not, for they were both atheists when they began their study. They became creationists in spite of the religious beliefs they held at that time. Most evolutionists assert that to hold a belief in creation is religion. According to this view, then, when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in ignorance of the facts, held to an evolutionary view of the origin of life, that was proper science; but the moment the scientific evidence convinced them that life could not have arisen naturally, therefore life had to be created supernaturally, their views instantly ceased to be science and became religion! [Of course this is absurd]
Other scientists, such as Yockey, 42 Salisbury, 43 Coppedge, 44 and Wilder-Smith 45 have come to similar conclusions or have expressed serious doubts. A spontaneous evolutionary origin of life can be positively excluded based on the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics and the laws of probability. The theory of an evolutionary origin of life is Twentieth Century mythology.
[end quotation]
Just to avoid confusion, the bible doesn't rule out "evolution" within "kinds" - limited speciation. Biblical "evolutionary" trees would look something like this (initial creation interrupted by the flood and then restarted):
[end quotation]
The interest disappeared after that line.
females cloned out of males, interrupted by flood. The bible does serious harm to the otherwise "possible" creation argument.
Just to avoid confusion, this easily disproved nonsense from the bible forms part of Perry’s cherished beliefs, he’s not ready to challenge firmly implanted ideas by reasoning on scientific facts and information.
