One of the many questions Darwinist cannot answer

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You can see here how many different species start of as squiggle things in the early embryo stage.
It seams that there would be a common ancestor to all of these creatures perhaps?

a reply to: DAVID64

Lol I didn't say it was wrong, I just said evolution hinges on an assumption that has yet to be proven. I love science so I dunno why you acting like evolution embodies all of science lol.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am off to school be back later.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Study hard, don't be a slacker.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is not a point mutation. It can be any mutation. Information is never lost. It is an entropic process where usable energy may become unusable, but the information is still there.

originally posted by: johnwick
My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.

Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.

Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.

That is a hinderence, not an advantage.

Well, let's look at it this way: I understand that this is not an example of evolution, but an example of cause/effect.

Take weight lifting for an example--it is well known that muscles gain strength at a much faster rate than do the tendons attaching said muscles to the bone. Often time, this is what leads to tendon issues, because the lifter increases his weight too quickly. But, over time, the stronger muscles, when used properly and weight isn't added on way too quickly, cause the tendons to catch up to the strength, or at least adapt to what the muscles are capable of lifting.

Is in not possible that the evolution of the eye can work the same way? Maybe the eye evolved first, then the optical nerves and center in the brain caught up in a relatively timely fashion. Or vice versa--the optical center in the brain may have evolved and allowed the optic nerves and the eyeball to evolve into something better.

Not everything in the theory of evolution must be in tandem for it to work, or else the argument would be that it only took a few hundred years to happen instead of millions or billions.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Would you prefer Neo-darwinism?

No, because that is still a slur invented by creationists. How about just calling it Evolutionary theory or just Evolution? We all would know what you are talking about. Though if you REALLY want to establish a decent rapport, call it Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or MES.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I hope you don't skip the science and math classes. You need it.

a reply to: johnwick

If it was aliens, they did it long ago. A long discussion of that is here:
stanericksonsblog.blogspot.com...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I strggled with this question myself, but then realized it was just my lack of creativity that kept me from seeing an evolutionary pathway to different organs or steps in evolution. For example, I couldn't understand how chlorophyll, which takes 17 chemical steps to synthesize it, could evolve. But later on I learned there are more primitive chemicals which also accept photons, not to produce ATP like chlorophyll, but to perform a task that the cell was already doing a bit easier. The primitive chemicals were not very efficient at absorbing red and blue photons, but a little bit of efficiency is all that evolution needs.

This doesn't mean that we didn't get seeding help from an earlier civilization, but just that it is not mandatory.
stanericksonsblog.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: johnwick

But if the aliens are made of biological material then the same question would come to who created them?

Same question applies to whatever being you propose created us. Who created them? And who created them?

And magic isn't an answer, it's a cop out.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Good Morning. As a Christian myself, I have no problem believing in the Holy Trinity and evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive you know!

Respectfully.

a reply to: angeldoll

Respectfully, the "holy trinity" takes advantage of the gaps in your understanding of evolutionary theory. That's why it "fits", because you don't know better.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: angeldoll

Respectfully, the "holy trinity" takes advantage of the gaps in your understanding of evolutionary theory. That's why it "fits", because you don't know better.

I deeply resent your comments. How dare you presume to offer me an explanation of something of which you have no knowledge and insult me as well.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You have your opinion, as ill conceived as it might be. My decision to not argue with folks like you came after my understanding that you wear your ignorance like a crown. As though you are somehow superior, or more intelligent, which is a self designation falsely conceived and arrogantly worn; pathetic at best. I would just as soon argue that the earth is flat, and waste my time that way, then to argue with a person as narrow minded and arrogant as you and your ilk.

Now, you know my opinion about you.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
So the question is there a type of mutations, Substitution, insertion, duplication, ect.. that actually adds new genetic information into the genome? If not Darwinist got some splainin' to do

You answered your own question right there.

In genetics, an insertion (also called an insertion mutation) is the addition of one or more nucleotide base pairs into a DNA sequence.

I see you moved the goalposts in your response to Phantom's post that broke it down, claiming it's now about full body parts emerging, not just DNA base pair insertions. Make up your mind. Are you disputing that base pairs can be inserted via mutation or are you disputing that organs could not have emerged in stages? Are you disputing accumulation of mutations? I just don't understand your issue here. More than one mutation to the same sequence could lead to new features or the slow development of them. Now that you moved the goalposts I don't even know what you are actually disputing here. I also do not understand your refusal to research what you are attacking in this thread. I found that wikipedia link almost instantly when searching for mutation base pair insertion. It's not that difficult to do the research.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

As to your code analogy, we can write an infinite amount of programs from a finite amount of code. Out of the alphabet, for instance, we can devise an infinite amount of writings without duplication. Take the longest sentence in the world, add a few more words to it, you have a new longest sentence in the world.

originally posted by: johnwick
I have other issues, but you bring up a good point.

My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.

Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.

Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.

That is a hinderence, not an advantage.

And until such a time as it was functional it would only be a drain.

This is completely wrong. It has been already demonstrated by scientists how the eye could form in stages that absolutely do not hinder the organism. Each step in the process gives an advantage. It starts with photo sensitive cells and improves from there. All you have to do is google eye evolution to show how that works. Why does nobody ever research what they are attacking?

Love the thread from a pure entertainment standpoint.

Ill add some other ways genetic material is introduced into a genome that didn't see typed here- that the op can further ignore.

1) Yes mutation (already mentioned). One single addition of a base pair changes the amino acid which changes the protein... One single base pair can indeed change a protein.

2) Sex. Its not just for fun. You add a whole glob of genetic information and create a little person that is genetically different.

3) Genetic Drift.... It would be easier if you just read something better put together en.wikipedia.org... than me trying to explain how statistically the random passing on of alleles causes a massive shift in genetic material in a population.

4) Gene flow. Do you think the genome of a person on the opposite side of the world as you has the same genome? No they don't. Its similar but you will have many many different genes than that person. Now lets pretend you walked across a land bridge and made babys with a local... See #2

5) Probably the most misunderstood and overlooked and highly debated in the field.... Lateral gene transfers www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/36108/title/Bacterial-DNA-in-Human-Genomes/
en.wikipedia.org...
This phenomena explains well some of the early leaps in evolution I saw some of you question here like in chloroplasts evolution and early organisms.


As I said this will be ignored too. I look forward to logging out and reading more "debate" in this thread.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your problem has to do with trying to oversimplify evolution; and if you were TRULY interested in finding the answer to this question, you'd go look it up yourself and read it until you thoroughly understood it. If that still didn't help, you'd ask honest questions about it to people more knowledgeable than yourself to clear up any misunderstandings.

This thread just shows that you are content with misunderstanding it because you seem to think that because you misunderstand evolution, that somehow disproves it.

This is extremely well written!

An honest person asks a question if they are ever confused about something. A biased person states that their opinion is correct, or slanders the other position using nothing but their own misconceptions.