RE: Atheism is a religion
January 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm by Undeceived.)
Quote:http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf
If that is not what you mean by information, please define information better.
This is the classic "gene-duplication" demonstration evolutionists refer to. But creating a duplicate is not new information. For macroevolution to occur, you first need this duplicate, then you need that duplicate to mutate. I'm still looking for proof of that duplicate mutating into a new tissue, and it doing so in trending fashion-- as opposed to one shot in the dark.
Quote:All of them are transitional fossils, all organisms evolve all the time. But the process is such that you need to take huge steps to see that change takes place as it is all on such a gradual level that one cannot see the changes overnight.
You don't know they are transitional fossils. Your only reason is the presumption that evolution is true and that the fossils look similar or have similar genetic codes. Of course two paws look alike-- they serve similar functions. Of course two cat types have similar genetic codes-- they're cats. Finding a fossil that is similar to a cat and, say, a wolf, does not mean it is a transition or common ancestor. It means they are alike genetically. Being alike genetically does not lead to the conclusion that they evolved, unless you have a prior wish for them to have.
Quote:If your long division doesn't need to be finished at a certain time (there is no goal) who cares if only the first step is carried out now? A gradual change over time doesn't need to be useful, any change can be useless as long as the change is not detrimental to the organism. All it takes are miniscule changes that develop over time, in their own time, as they happen.
Who cares? Well, if all I needed was a hypothesis to have science, I could hypothesize about mice being on the moon because the moon looks like cheese. You can hypothesize about anything, but that doesn't make it true or even very supported.
Quote:Are you arguing evolution or cosmology? Please pick a topic and stay with it.
I was drawing a link between the two. Evolution is scientists' explanation for the origin of life without God. You need the Big Bang (scientists' explanation for the origin of matter without God) before you have evolution. And you need 95% more matter than we see today in order for the Big Bang to be logical.
Quote:In language it is an error. A chemical reaction is neither correct or an error, just different. If the change works than great, if it doesn't and is neutral, no problem, if it is detrimental it will seize to function.
I'll repeat, DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time. When it's not, that's the organism's failure to pass clean, tested information on to its offspring. If the organism intended to copy the information perfectly and it instead came out imperfect... that is an error. If the intended affect of the spark-plugs was to start a car, and it instead starts a fire, is that an error or change? If the intention/goal/purpose is not fulfilled, a mistake has been made. By all demonstrations, DNA is designed/evolved to copy the same every time. Don't try and tell me gene mutations are different from everything else in the universe. If you want to make that claim, it's purely subjective. When you call something a change as opposed to a mistake, you are making the assumption that there is no intended purpose in the universe. It's true that evolution says there is no purpose, but you can't use evolution's conclusion to prove evolution-- that's a circular argument.
Quote:Interesting point, but why would that matter? We already know that 99% of all species will die out, and some will survive, this is not a problem for evolution. Just because the odds of a new species evolving is very small doesn't make it impossible or even improbable. It just takes a lot of time and slight variations.
At some point in history, species were multiplying in number. Evolution says life started with one (or a couple) and now the earth has millions of species. It's up to science to prove this tendency for procreation and diversity, when today all we see are species going extinct and converging.
