Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Random? Hmmm… I’m sure that means something. In this case, it means: if we say it took millions of years then it can happen. OOPS. Shouldn’t have wrote that. Now my Baloney Detector is moving into the red zone…
 
in which the organism was determined by its repair mechanisms not to let the mutation stand.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Random physical activity leads to disorganization.
Click to expand...
Place a salt solution out in the sun, let the water evaporate due to normal random physical activity and the organisation of the salt molecules will increase as they go from a disorganised aqueous solution to a very organised crystal lattice.
Click to expand...
What you have in a salt water system is more complexity than in a salt crystal alone. Where before Sodium and Chlorine ions were evenly distributed, surrounded by water molecules, evaporation results in the less complex, less organized, crystal of NaCl with H2O molecules floating around in the air around it and up to the clouds…
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
As fresh and new as a baby is, the information contained in the nuclei of its cells is degraded from that which was present in its ancient forebears.
Click to expand...
False. Our very ancient forebears were less able to resist diseases such as smallpox and the Black Death. Better to say “changed” than “degraded”. Some changes are good, some changes are neutral and some changes are deleterious. By using a value-laden word like “degraded” you are importing assumptions into your argument.
Click to expand...
What you are describing are adaptations, which no one is arguing against. I’m suggesting that the capacity to fight new viruses and bacteria, although not always possible, is built into the genome. Those people who have the capacity, survive as will their progeny, who share in that trait.

While most mutations may be mended or compensated for, the accumulation of genetic defects is bound to spell trouble. Besides what it does to the family structure and the power differential considerations, there’s a universal taboo against incest for this reason.

As to the appropriateness of the word “degrade”, while it may be taken as a value judgement that could be projected onto the person carrying a genetic disorder, perhaps it is that reason that makes it appropriate. We are as one humanity degraded by original sin and by all the sin we have spread since our beginnings. The purity which was given us has however been recovered in Christ.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
In fact gene loss is being found to be a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.
Click to expand...
Read your reference again. It is talking well above the level of evolution within a single species:
How relevant has gene loss been in the divergence of phyla?
Click to expand...
If gene loss were relevant to evolution within Homo sapiens then the Alaskan girl you referenced would have had more genes than modern populations. Likewise ancient Egyptian or Andean mummies would have extra genes that are no longer present in modern populations. We do not see that. Phyla are at a much higher level. We are Chordates while insects are Arthopods; that is the level of difference between phyla, where gene loss is a known mechanism. It is not relevant mechanism for micro-evolution within a species.
Click to expand...
I am arguing against evolutionary theory. It is about adaptation. Evolution as an extension of adaptation is not possible. That’s the point I was trying to make.

She doesn’t necessarily have extra genes, her offspring would have greater potential for diversity than ours now because some of the genome is poorly functioning as a result of unrepairable random mutations. That said God is with us and can fix whatever holds us back from doing His will that we choose love.

We are a different creation than insects and other animals, as we are differently created from plants and bacteria. I don’t know in detail how it happened, although I do have my favoured stories, but it was creation.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Random? Hmmm… I’m sure that means something. In this case, it means: if we say it took millions of years then it can happen. OOPS. Shouldn’t have wrote that. Now my Baloney Detector is moving into the red zone…
Click to expand...
Well… + or _ a few million years, but we do know now, that given enough time, random mutations can produce… The USS Starship Enterprise.
 
Last edited:
Not when compared to, say, a banana. We share 50% of our DNA with that particular plant. That puts it in perspective… so yes, a chimp is 98% human if a banana is already 50% there!
 
OK. Fair enough. I’ll revise what I said:
50% of human genes have a corresponding banana gene. 98% of human genes have a corresponding chimp gene. Regardless, humans and chimps are far, far, far more closely related than humans and bananas.
 
Aloysium said:
I’m suggesting that the capacity to fight new viruses and bacteria, although not always possible, is built into the genome. Those people who have the capacity, survive as will their progeny, who share in that trait.
Click to expand...
You can hypothesize that all needed adaptations are built in to the genome fully developed, but there is no evidence that it is. No one has ever found the information in the cell for a complex adaptation before it was ever needed. HGT can make it appear that the info was built-in, but no one has proven that an adaptation was pre-programmed before any organism anywhere needed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top