Originally posted by Lincoln
There is very little objectivity involved.
There is very little objectivity involved.
That is why a certain chain of events that “proved” the evolution of dinosaurs turned out to be simply the same family in different stages of development from child to adolescent to adult as well as the different bone structures of the male and female. This was exposed after about 40 years. The same can be said about the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man as well as hundreds of similar examples.
People find bones and then everyone trues to decide what it all means. There is disputes constantly about the significance of fossils especially in light of past errors in interpretation.
Speculation is also when someone says “we don’t know everything therefore evolution did it.” Micro evolution or the process of natural selection is a solid theory. Changes from one distinct kind of animal to another is speculation based upon subject interpretation of evidence.
Nor will repeating “evolution is a fact” make it so. Present reality and present known laws are the basis of science. Theories and hypotheses and speculation precede from there.
Forgive me but that is kind of funny. Have you been to a public school lately?
Ever heard of a pollywog? It turns into a frog eventually. Flying squirrels or flying fish or swimming ducks or jumping grasshoppers are all apart of nature. That does not prove any transition from kind to kind.
Please prove that the laws I posted are not valid. They require a “coder”. If you can offer proof to the contrary then I will withdraw my assertion.
That is obvious. But it just so happens to make another tree each time. You cannot escape that.
I am still waiting for evidence instead of obfuscation. I won't hold my breath so you can give up hoping that I will die instead of ask again.
Yes there is variation built into the instructions that enable the tree to adapt
There is variation inherent in sexual reproduction and errors in the copying process.
But that does not negate the goal of becoming a pear tree as opposed to an apple tree or whatever. Some seeds do not grow at all and some die but the goal is the same. They reproduce after their kind.
I have seen lots of evidence for evolution.
I am giving you evidence for creation here.
No you aren't. You haven't given one single bit of evidence.
And you are using circular reasoning again. “It evolved that way” is not an answer it is a statement of belief on your part. I asked a simple question. Please show how using chemical laws the DNA code can evolve?
DNA is not always copied exactly. Many of the changes are NOT fatal. Only some are. The non-fatal changes accumulate. That is evolution. Don't pretend I didn't just show you how unless you can prove that change either doesn't happen or doesn't accumulate.
A computer code does have meaning when it performs a function that was the goal of the programmer. And it does have meaning when it contains useful information that was put there by the intelligent source that created it (a human being).
And saying “it evolved” is another statement of faith. You say that DNA came after life got started.
Please show a life form that exists today that does not contain DNA or RNA (which also contains coded information).
HIV is life without DNA.
RNA is capable of copying itself.
And even if “life” did start without DNA it certainly does contain it now. Please show how it evolved if you can without using the laws that I posted.
I allready showed how DNA evolves. DNA is only slightly different from RNA. The change is concievable. There is no possible proof for something that happened over 3.8 billion years ago.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of god.
Unless you can show that evidence should be there as is the case for the Flood. There is no evidence of the Biblical Flood yet there should be. There is no reason to expect that we will ever find evidence for how life started on Earth. The best we can ever hope for is to understand how it might of happened.
Good, then show how chemistry makes the coded information contained in DNA. That should be easy.
I did not see their web sites. Sorry.
You continue saying in effect that evolution did it. You use that assertion to “prove” that evolution did it.
If you have proof that the DNA code and the information within it evolved then show it here.
I have never claimed to know how life started. You are the one claiming that. I am waiting for evidence. Please try to show some.
You cannot begin with a statement of belief and circle around to that same statement. You believe in evolution as the creator of life I believe in God as the creator.
I am trying to show that the coded information that is in life must have originated from an intelligent mental source. You say in response, “evolution did it”. Please show how that happens.
Everything you have said requires a creator for life inevitably shows that a creator is needed for the creator. That is the heart the circularity of your arguement.
Yes, a lot of things may have been different but reality today is that life is based upon the coded instructions contained in DNA. Like you said. The other alternative is speculation.
I do not question the process of natural selection.
That is exactly what you did when you defended Draco.
But you are not answering the question of the origin of information. If truly new information is added then it would indicate the further intervention of an intelligent mental source.
But in studying the potential of existing information such as is used in the immune system I would hesitate to assume that there is any need for that speculation.
So does your creator just like killing people or are you willing to finally see the obvious reality that the bacteria have evolved to fit the new environment?
Adaption is provided for in the initial instructions.
Information which already exists in other bacteria and is combined with other information is like two software programs interacting. There is usually no need to speculate that there is another source.
If there is no need to speculate about a source why are you doing so? I don't see the need myself but you clearly are saying an inteligent source is needed. I see the enviroment as the clear shaper in this case.
Comment