Evolution - Yes again.

Can someone please read this information, and Yes, it's a creationist site, but it explains the  life-from-nothing / evolution theory and how it is flawed..

 

I understand most of what he is saying, and the arguments seem very logical to me, but, I have no way of knowing whether the Science he is quoting is correct or has subsequently been debunked.

 

I would appreciate if someone with a bit more knowledge in DNA / RNA / proteins / cell regeneration / cell division etc could advise me.

 

By the way, he also quotes Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale and how, with recent developments at least some of the assumptions that Dawkins makes are impossible.

 

Can we PLEASE see if we can keep this thread civil and on-topic.

 

There is a lot more info on this site too, but first can we look at and discuss:

 

http://creation.com/genetic-code-intelligence

 

http://creation.com/meta-information

 

 

Message 1 of 132
Latest reply
131 REPLIES 131

Re: Evolution - Yes again.

So we're reduced to playground taunts now, are we?

Quoting one scientist who may well have been taken out of context, does not unequivocally prove the argument against evolution.

One tree does not a forest make.

 

Get back to me when the majority of scientists agree with Knoll's premise.

Enjoy your TV.

Message 41 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.


@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Both of those statements could be used by me too.

 

Believe in Evolution - "Don't settle for Fairy Tales just because you're overwhelmed by questions for which you have no answers".

 

Your ignorance of scientific knowledge is not evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

Anyway, I'm off to watch Broadchurch and Fortitude.


How do you come to the logical conclusion that 99.9% of the scientists simply take it on faith and not on evidenced based theory?

Message 42 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.

And in the scenario of messages being passed and received he is referring to dna code being passed between splitting cells, which as we know, when those dna codes are corrupted what do we get? Certainly not advancement - we get regression / deformity etc.

 

You keep coming back to the assumption that any change in the DNA sequence must be a regression/deformity, but that is because you are coming at it from the standpoint that every species was created separately and perfectly to be exactly what it was for as long as it existed. Scientificlly there is no logical reason why some mutations should not be an improvement and in fact it is exactly how evolution occurs. The changes are so tinyhowever that the individual who first carries this mutated gene looks and behaves exactly like all its contemporaries, but if  the offspring of that individual interbreed or breed with another individual who carries the same mutation then over hundreds of generations those mutations will become more pronounced; and if it is a difference that gives those individuals  a slight advantage over their contemporaries then those differences wil eventually come to predominate in the group or species.

 

 DNA is not a message which has to be decoded, it is the ingredients- building block if you like -  that make any living thing what it is, so of course it is going to be replicted in each generation of any species. 

 

And when I say DNA evolved I am assuming (and if I am wrong I'm sure someone can correct me) that the DNA sequence of the very first microscopic organism was not anywhere near as complex as the DNA sequence of a human being.

 

Under the Creationism theory God started start out with one massive  'code' to account for every single living thing that would ever exist and then implanted the appropriate bits of that code into each species as he created them.  In Evolution there didn't have to be one  massive code that would eventually account for every living thing, All there had to be was the genetic code for one microscopic organism.

Message 43 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

And in the scenario of messages being passed and received he is referring to dna code being passed between splitting cells, which as we know, when those dna codes are corrupted what do we get? Certainly not advancement - we get regression / deformity etc.

 

You keep coming back to the assumption that any change in the DNA sequence must be a regression/deformity, but that is because you are coming at it from the standpoint that every species was created separately and perfectly to be exactly what it was for as long as it existed. Scientificlly there is no logical reason why some mutations should not be an improvement and in fact it is exactly how evolution occurs. The changes are so tinyhowever that the individual who first carries this mutated gene looks and behaves exactly like all its contemporaries, but if  the offspring of that individual interbreed or breed with another individual who carries the same mutation then over hundreds of generations those mutations will become more pronounced; and if it is a difference that gives those individuals  a slight advantage over their contemporaries then those differences wil eventually come to predominate in the group or species.

 

 DNA is not a message which has to be decoded, it is the ingredients- building block if you like -  that make any living thing what it is, so of course it is going to be replicted in each generation of any species. 

 

And when I say DNA evolved I am assuming (and if I am wrong I'm sure someone can correct me) that the DNA sequence of the very first microscopic organism was not anywhere near as complex as the DNA sequence of a human being.

 

But how can DNA improve itself - ie get bigger and more complex?

 

Under the Creationism theory God started start out with one massive  'code' to account for every single living thing that would ever exist and then implanted the appropriate bits of that code into each species as he created them.  In Evolution there didn't have to be one  massive code that would eventually account for every living thing, All there had to be was the genetic code for one microscopic organism.

 

I didn't know that. Why could God have not created single celled animals first and then progressed to bigger and better creations, as the Bible says He did?

 

I set out to have a discussion and analyse evolutionary theories and get people's input about the site I quoted, but it seems that no-one can just say : "well, he's wrong about this ... because ..." - it has, as usual, degraded into 'creationists are idiots' and 'evolutionists are the only sane people' - so, I give up.


 

Message 44 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.

Re: Evolution - Yes again.

I didn't know that. Why could God have not created single celled animals first and then progressed to bigger and better creations, as the Bible says He did?

 

He could have done but unless  those single celled organisms were going to mutate into other creatures,  he would still have had to have the entire code in his mind and known which bits would make which animals before he started.

 

Evolution does not think and does not create - it is a process. 

A billion years or so ago a tiny blipoccurred  in one gene in the DNA sequence ofone of the  the first single celled organisms - its DNA was no longer exactly the same as its parent cell. and when that cell reproduced the ensuing cells also carried that blip - that difference may have given it an advantage, or maybe it just didn't give it a disadvantage and the two almost but not quite identiacl organisms went on happily reproducing side by side until a couple of million years later another tiny blip occurred in the DNA of one of them etc etc.

Message 46 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 

 

He could have done but unless  those single celled organisms were going to mutate into other creatures,  he would still have had to have the entire code in his mind and known which bits would make which animals before he started.

 

 


I'm certainly not going to second guess what God's reasons were BUT:

 

Why must those single celled animals have mutated into all other lifeforms?

Why did God have to have the whole code in his mind?

Why could He not have learned from one Creation to the next? It would explain the similarities in genetics etc.

Why could He not have created subsequently more advanced things, as the atmosphere became more suitable?

Why did he create large animals like dinosaurs while the earth was wild (forests etc) - one answer would be that they were more suitable in that environment?

 

There are thousands of reasons why things happened the way they did, and none of them  dictate mutations of the kind that evolution insists on - except within each creation - ie the elephant(s) we see today are not necessarily the elephants He created - they have evolved within their species / group - BUT not outside that group. The dogs He created were certainly not the same as the dogs we have today.

Message 47 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.

Why could He not have learned from one Creation to the next? It would explain the similarities in genetics etc.

 

Because then it wouldn't be intelligent design, would it? It would be a "Hmmm lets see if this works, yep that looks OK, so now  lets try this,   oops, no, back to the drawing board" design and that doesn't sound to me like an omniscient creator.

Message 48 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.

And yet again, you call me names.

 

 

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

 

Smiley Wink

 

Message 49 of 132
Latest reply

Re: Evolution - Yes again.


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Why could He not have learned from one Creation to the next? It would explain the similarities in genetics etc.

 

Because then it wouldn't be intelligent design, would it? It would be a "Hmmm lets see if this works, yep that looks OK, so now  lets try this,   oops, no, back to the drawing board" design and that doesn't sound to me like an omniscient creator.


Why not?  Intelligence does not proclude learning does it? Of course, I am not saying that's what happened - just one of the many options.

 

Take the person with the highest registered IQ ever, multiply that by 1,000 and STILL that person has to learn.

 

Anyway, I'm sufficiently fed up. Can't be bothered any more. All I can say is, I hope I am never convinced that this filthy existence is all there is, or I may as well find a nice oncoming B-double and go out with a bang.

Message 50 of 132
Latest reply