• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution: the basics

Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sargonski said:
But, there is scientific evidence for one human and one Not so Human .. mating .. and in fact there are multiple intervals of humans mating with Neanderthal
Click to expand...
What homo sapiens could resist her beauty, eh.
(I wouldn't be in her league.)
OIP.wQ2ASgYzuO3h9qfmc1Q13gHaE8
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
To start, what exactly IS evolution? It is the change over time of the frequency of alleles in a population. That's fancy pants words that means that all life changes genetically. The TOE claims that all life on the planet can be traced back to a single source. The oldest fossils we have are of single celled organism that lived in water. It makes sense to assume there were forms before this, but as of now, we simply don't have any earlier fossils.

These changes happen in response to environmental pressures. Random mutations occur, and some of them will be adaptive. By adaptive, scientists mean that they increase the likelihood of living long enough to procreate fertile offspring. An adaptation can be something physical, such as the ability to run farther or to have plumage that attracts the opposite sex. Or it can be something non-physical, such as the ability to cooperate.
Click to expand...
The central problem with the current theory of evolution is the random mutation assumption. Random change will cause more things to go wrong then right. This could be proven in the lab by having a layman rearrange genes in bacteria, to see what happens. They would not know the best ways to make it better, making their changes more random. This model of evolution, using this random mutation, would come out something like ten steps down, and then one step up. Life should have died off long ago. To get to the reality of constant evolution; positive change, the model has to assumes a hocus pocus affect, so the one step up, is more like eleven steps up, again, again and again. That math is not doable in a random world.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in a process of change; evolution, but a random mechanism does not add up. Rather it relies of the same odds of earning a living, by just buying lottery or scratch tickets. Most tickets will be duds, so the periodic winning lottery tickets would have to be large enough offset this loss, with a profit. This is not a likely way to earn a living or serve as basis for changes behind evolution.

For example, modern cells in humans have proof reader enzymes, which move along duplicated DNA repairing typos. Why would a model of change, based on random, evolve a way to minimize random? This tells me evolution is heading towards order.

The current model would benefit by something more like a spell check, that adds the wrong words, trying to think for you. It still creates a coherent thought, but not the original intent; new but valid gene to test. This can be done via the summation affect of the water continuum focused on the DNA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top