Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evolution is biological history, mutation, and statistics.
Evolution is controversial because conservatives have decided that teaching evolution threatens their religious beliefs. Damn shame but it is the truth.
Evolution is controversial because conservatives have decided that teaching evolution threatens their religious beliefs. Damn shame but it is the truth.
Actually there are facts. And scientific laws are essentially facts as they cannot be disproven.
The existence of gravity is a FACT. The reason it is not a law is because we cannot properly describe how it works but it's existence is a fact.
That fusion causes a massive outpouring of energy is a fact.
That hydrogen will combine with oxygen and make water or peroxide is a fact. The known circumstances that lead to either state are facts.
That distilled water freezes at 32F or 0C depending on your location is a fact.
These things are accepted as facts, pending further observation. It was once accepted as a fact that a man would die if he reached the speed of 15 mph, until he did it.
That should be clear....unless you're so blinded by atheism that you believe that things just appeared from nothing.
Yes, Natural Forces
While science can't definitively define the origins of the Universe, if indeed there was an "origin", given time, and the scientific process, they will. One thing is quite sure, the silly, disjinted rambling description of the origina of life/the Universe proffered by various religions, is just so much sillyness.
First off, my references to random chance was not directly speaking to genetic mutation, though that too, by definition is most certainly random. I was specifically referring to the "origin of life" .. that first living, self replicating organism for which all else owes it's existence. And that original organism could only come into existence in one of two ways ... deliberate design or random chance. There IS NO THIRD CHOICE. So either you support the notion that a self replicating cell came into existence by random mixing of inorganic building blocks, including DNA, or you must accept that something or someone directed that construction deliberately, with purpose. There is no other option, no matter how much you twist and contort.
Secondly, to suggest that DNA changes are not "completely" random is an example of either a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand here, or another deliberate tactical diversion. The hard cold reality is that "mutation", as defined by the Darwinian model of evolution through which natural selection makes it's choices, has to be similarly random (unless it is deliberate and by design) ... given that it is an error or damage that has occurred to the genetic material. The process of natural selection hypothesizes that such mutations, though in vast majority either silent or negative, may infrequently and randomly and quite accidentally offer a benefit to the organism, which is the central mechanism of evolution through natural selection. These extremely rare beneficial mutations, according to natural selection, are kept and passed on, while the negative mutations affecting the organism's viability or survival are naturally weeded out. That suzy, IS the fundamental mechanism of evolution.
The second part of your statement is directly at odds with itself .... "Some genes never mutate, primarily because they code for essential processes and mutations are lethal. Organisms with those mutations do not survive". Need I actually dissect the contradiction here? You claim some genes NEVER mutate ... then you say that organisms with such mutations (that never occur) don't survive. Apparently, in those non surviving organisms, those genes that NEVER mutate, apparently don't realize that they are forbidden to mutate, according to you. You may now smack yourself, because you deserve to suffer the same headache you've given me.
This debate is not about the intricacies, details or order of the individual biological processes you just referred to as "programmed in sequence", inferring that there is no need for outside intervention in each of these processes... the issue is .... drum roll ..... wait for it .... the "programming", and how that programming came to be inbuilt into the construction of the particular organism!!!!!!! The very existence of these "programmed sequences" IS THE ENTIRE POINT. "Programming", by definition suggests a "Programmer", unless that very complex and detailed program simply came to be by random chance. And here we are, back at the very beginning, coming full circle to the unavoidable question of whether this programming is deliberate and purposeful, and thereby evidence of Intelligent Design, or whether this "programming" came into existence by random combining of raw elements, lacking any preconceived, designed purpose.
Obviously ... this is so elementary as to cause someone to scream and shout at you ... these coded instructions contained in the DNA structure, that directs all of those activities in the aforementioned "programmed sequences", literally constructs the living cells of an organism, molecule by molecule, protein by protein. The level of disconnect with reality required to ignore the deliberate design characteristics here is as mind numbing as is the absurdity of claiming how simple DNA is. There is nothing ... absolutely nothing simple about DNA ... not it's structure, and not the code inbuilt into it's structure. The fact is, it is the most sophisticated data storage and retrieval device known to exist ... nothing else compares. That it is organic and self replicating and self repairing leaves no room for making such absurd claims of "simplicity". That, coupled with the fact that in spite of decades of effort, scientists still don't know what 80-90% of the DNA code actually does, is testimony to it's complexity. But it sure does speak to the simple minded nature of evolutionary science, since the biological scientists wrestling with DNA (and losing) simply decided to label all that they don't understand as "junk DNA". This itself not only illustrates DNA's complexity, but the brain dead arrogance of scientists who simply dismiss as inconsequential or purposeless, that which they cannot figure out. That defines evolution and biological science today perfectly ... what ever they don't know is dismissed as not worth knowing ... and what ever conflicts with what they insist they do know, is ignored in like fashion. How very "scientific" !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
