What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found in Overlooked “Junk” DNA

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: neoholographic

I've read your two pos.

This post shows you can't refute anything that's being said. This isn't a respone, it's a short quip with nothing but opinion.

If I'm wrong, show me the evidence of species trying not to adapt to its environment.

This is a natural interpretation of evolution. It says, there's no direction or purpose. This is why Darwin was shocked when he didn't see millions of intermediate varieties.

This is because he didn't know about the supercomputer in the cell so he thought evolutionary pressures from the environment would trigger random mutations and blindly evolve all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES and one of these blind items would by luck be what the organism needs to survive in the environment.

Instead, we see a one to one correspondence. An organism needs x to survive in an environment and x evolves. Darwin said:

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This is very important because this alone destroys the notion of a natural interpretation of evolution without even talking about information encoded on the sequence of a storage medium.

What Darwin is saying here is, he expected to see thousands if not millions of these intermediate varieties. This is because Darwin didn't know about all of the information in DNA.

Darwin thought environmental pressures caused random mutations to occur. These random mutations would evolve thousands of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES. So a,b,c,d,e,f..... traits would evolve and just buy luck and with no direction the f and b traits would survive best in the environment and would survive via reproduction.

Let me say this again because this destroys Darwin's theory but it was kept a live because it's a crutch for atheism and materialism.

Darwin thought environmental pressures caused random mutations to occur. These random mutations would evolve thousands of INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES. So a,b,c,d,e,f..... traits would evolve and just buy luck and with no direction the f and b traits would survive best in the environment and would survive via reproduction.

This is why Darwin said:

and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

Well, we know now that Darwin's theory is destroyed because of this. Darwin said this because if rendom mutations didn't produce all of these intermediate varieties then there had to be something that's not natural or random causing a one to one correspondence when it comes to adaption. This is exactly what we see.

Again, there's no evidence in the fossil record or the genome that shows any natural or random adaption.

This is design! When x(malaria) occurs then y(a mutation) occurs at a specific point that gives carriers of malaria a protective advantage. Where's the evolution of information?

When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria. There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment.

Let's look at the Giraffe.

First, why didn't other animals evolve long necks to survive? Why don't we see a forest full of long neck animals?

The evolution of the Giraffe illustrates a couple of points.

First, there's a direct line of evolution. The Giraffe needed x to survive and it evolved x.

The two forces that drove giraffes towards elongating their necks are simple. The need to eat and the need to breed.....The evolutionary history of the giraffe brings us back to approximately 50 million years ago. An animal similar to antelopes evolved into two species that are extant today. Many of these animals roamed across Eurasia and Africa until they went extinct or evolved into animals we see today. These surviving members of the Giraffidae family are the okapi and the giraffe, both of which (Whom?) inhabit Africa. Many other extinct predecessors of the giraffe existed, and their fossils remain. By using these fossils scientists were able to figure out how their necks evolved anatomically.

The paper, published in the Royal Society Open Science, discussed several detailed aspects of each vertebrae in the neck that lengthened over the 15 million years that the Giraffidae family existed and over the 50 million year time span of the ancestral evolution of long necks. .Many species and families preceded the Giraffidae family, all of which exhibited either neck or cranial lengthening.

evolution-institute.org...

This is clear evidence of design. The Giraffe had a need and it evolved that need. Let me repeat:

Many species and families preceded the Giraffidae family, all of which exhibited either neck or cranial lengthening.

Here's a picture that shows this:

That's just a beautiful straight line of intelligent design. The animal needed x to survive and x evolved.

Darwin expected to see INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES or thousands of fossils with traits that have nothing to do with elongated necks or any trait it would need to survive. Darwin's theory says a species evolves NOT TO ADAPT to it's environment.

There's no purpose, there's no direction, just blind, random mutations that occur due to environmental pressures and whichever one of these traits just happen to survive best in the environment will survive via reproduction.

I have to stress this point:

Darwin expected to see INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES or thousands of fossils with traits that have nothing to do with elongated necks or any trait it would need to survive. Darwin's theory says a species evolves NOT TO ADAPT to it's environment.

There's no purpose, there's no direction, just blind, random mutations that occur due to environmental pressures and whichever one of these traits just happen to survive best in the environment will survive via reproduction.

THIS DESTROYS A NATURAL INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION!

The only reason that it's not regulated to a middle earth fantasy story is because people use evolution to support their atheism or materialism.

This is why I say this is satanic. It's used to separate people from God and their spiritual nature. It's a strong delusion and I just pray that people break free of the cave of evolution through Jesus Christ.

Here's a whole post you never responded to Terra Liga.

a reply to: neoholographic

If they can't even admit amino acid polymerization is non-spontaneous in water, they will not be able to fathom further intricacies regarding the impossibility of random chance creation of intelligible organisms.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: neoholographic

If they can't even admit amino acid polymerization is non-spontaneous in water, they will not be able to fathom further intricacies regarding the impossibility of random chance creation of intelligible organisms.

Excellent point!

It really amazes me how you can present evidence, they don't respond or refute the evidence and then they say show me some evidence.

It's also telling how they hate the words random or blind when that's exactly what a natural interpretation of evolution is.

The whole premise of evolution is evolutionary pressures trigger random mutations and these mutations or INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES as Darwin called them reach the environment. These traits are not beneficial until they reach the environment and nature decides through natural selection which of these traits will be a benefit to a species survival.

This is a blind and random process. If adaptions are directed to benefit the species and help them survive in an environment that's intelligent design.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This goes to the very heart of a natural interpretation of evolution. As Darwin said:

and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

Once we discovered the supercomputer in the cell, that should have been the end of a natural interpretation of evolution but because evolution is used as a pillar for atheist and materialist, they continue to push the fantasy.

a reply to: neoholographic

I've read your two post, but I don't see one iota of evidence to support what you are suggesting. Please post evidence and not ignorance.

That's because you don't understand chemistry and physics. You've never been in a lab, never have conducted real experiments so why would anyone think that you understand molecular biology
Get an education.

a reply to: neoholographic

Once we discovered the supercomputer in the cell, that should have been the end of a natural interpretation of evolution but because evolution is used as a pillar for atheist and materialist, they continue to push the fantasy.

Over 500 peer-reviewed journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research papers say you're wrong. Your "fantasy" happens to be the reality of science and the real world. Get over it already.

a reply to: cooperton

So where's that paper that says amino acid monomers cannot form in water? There isn't one - that's why you can't post it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Once we discovered the supercomputer in the cell, that should have been the end of a natural interpretation of evolution but because evolution is used as a pillar for atheist and materialist, they continue to push the fantasy.

Over 500 peer-reviewed journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research papers say you're wrong. Your "fantasy" happens to be the reality of science and the real world. Get over it already.

You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

If there's all of these journals and research papers, why haven't you posted one that answers these questions:

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

You're making a natural interpretation of evolution look bad.

Again, the challenge still stands. We're 11 pages deep into this thread and surely someone can find one paper posted by Phantom that answers these questions since there's 500 peer reviewed journals and 200,000 research articles.

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

I will wait.........

a reply to: neoholographic

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

Already replied to that multiple times. You just don't understand it.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Once we discovered the supercomputer in the cell, that should have been the end of a natural interpretation of evolution but because evolution is used as a pillar for atheist and materialist, they continue to push the fantasy.

Over 500 peer-reviewed journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research papers say you're wrong. Your "fantasy" happens to be the reality of science and the real world. Get over it already.

You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

If there's all of these journals and research papers, why haven't you posted one that answers these questions:

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

You're making a natural interpretation of evolution look bad.

Again, the challenge still stands. We're 11 pages deep into this thread and surely someone can find one paper posted by Phantom that answers these questions since there's 500 peer reviewed journals and 200,000 research articles.

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

I will wait.........

I took up your challenge and I found nothing. I looked at Phantom's posts in this thread and there wasn't one paper or research article that answered your questions. You would think with 200,000 research articles there would be at least 2 or 3 of them that answers these questions but there's no answers to be found in Phantom's posts.

a reply to: neoholographic

You're right those questions are exactly what needs to be asked:

"Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?"

The process of translation is how living cells polymerize amino acids. It is a catalyzed reaction that is necessary for amino acids to be able to polymerize in a cell. The mechanisms required for even the most basic DNA replication and protein production are far beyond the reach of random chance. This is a micromolecular factory... and we know factories don't come to be by random chance

originally posted by: Romeopsi

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Once we discovered the supercomputer in the cell, that should have been the end of a natural interpretation of evolution but because evolution is used as a pillar for atheist and materialist, they continue to push the fantasy.

Over 500 peer-reviewed journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research papers say you're wrong. Your "fantasy" happens to be the reality of science and the real world. Get over it already.

You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

If there's all of these journals and research papers, why haven't you posted one that answers these questions:

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

You're making a natural interpretation of evolution look bad.

Again, the challenge still stands. We're 11 pages deep into this thread and surely someone can find one paper posted by Phantom that answers these questions since there's 500 peer reviewed journals and 200,000 research articles.

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

I will wait.........

I took up your challenge and I found nothing. I looked at Phantom's posts in this thread and there wasn't one paper or research article that answered your questions. You would think with 200,000 research articles there would be at least 2 or 3 of them that answers these questions but there's no answers to be found in Phantom's posts.

I'm not surprised. I said this would happen. Phantom makes the same argument, the argument gets destroyed and he vanishes only to resurface again at a later date with the same argument that doesn't refute anything.

Like you said, out of 500 peer reviewed journals and 200,000 research articles, in a thread that's 11 pages deep you should be able to find a few papers that answer these questions.

Tell me, how did self assembly encode information on the sequence of a storage medium? How did self assembly originate this information? How did self assembly decide CAC would code for histidine? When a strand of messenenger RNA has the code for histidine in it's sequence, how did self assembly create the information that built the machinery that knows what CAC stands for in the sequence? How did self assembly correlate digital and analog information? How did self assembly create parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles? How did self assembly encode information in the sequences of a storage medium that regulate the expression of coded regions?

Instead you get....NOTHING!

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: neoholographic

From this paper, could you quote the relevant paragraph(s) that specifically refute evolution as we know it, or support intelligent design please? Don't quote the whole paper, just the parts that support your statement "A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy." Thank you in advance.



I'll make a prediction; you won't. You won't because you haven't read anything beyond the abstract. I'll save you the trouble, it says nothing that supports anything you've claimed, but your creationist reviewers say it does based on one line - which they then deliberately change and then assume it means something else.

Remind me please, what does the bible say about people who set out to deceive?

Can you name a time information has risen from matter?

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
I think we are Monkeys 5.0 .The Monkeys were 1st developed to fill a natural environmental nitch but look at them all they do is run a muck and fornicate.

So they upgraded for more intelligence Still not sure they got it right.

it wont be right until some of us are transformed to be like Him.

a reply to: cooperton

Exactly and like I said, it's funny how those who support this fantasy hate the words blind or random chance. Random mutations that are blind and without purpose or direction is at the heart of a natural interpretation of evolution.

I can't stress this enough because it shows that a natural interpretation of evolution is impossible. When I was in 7th grade, we learned in science class that species adapt to their environments. It's still taught in schools today. Some scientist realize this supports intelligent design and they're panicking.

Darwin said:

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Darwin's entire theory hinges on species not evolving traits for any benefit or to syrvive in their environment but that's exactly what the genome and fossil records show.

Darwin expected to see all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES but didn't. He even thought they were hidden in the imperfection of the geological record but today we know they're not hidden they're non-existent.

THIS IS A CRUSHING BLOW TO A NATURAL INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION!

What's natural selection selecting if these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES of Darwin are nowhere to be found?

What this means is, environmental pressures occur and random mutations cause traits that are meaningless to the organism to reach the environment. These traits aren't harmful, neutral or beneficial to the species in any way. They only are labeled beneficial, harmful or neutral after they reach the environment then the few that help the species survive in the environment survive. So it's supposed to have no direction or purpose.

This is illogical and impossible. Darwin's entire theory interpreted from a natural standpoint should have been thrown out.

Just ask yourself, if it's a process driven by random mutations, why do all of these organisms keep evolving the exact trait needed to survive? An organism needs x traits to survive and they evolve x traits without any evidence that these traits are competing agains any INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

Even when you look at extremophiles, they always get it right and evolve exactly what they need to survive in some of the harshest environments.

THIS SUPPORTS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Darwin realized this. If there's a mechanism that directs species to evolve and adapt to their environment, it's not random or natural so nature must be filled with INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES that competed with the few traits that just by blind, dumb luck was a benefit to the species survival in the environment. Sorry Darwin, the supercomputer in the cell destroyed this nonsense.

Evolution would never occur because too many species would run up against the trait needed to survive not evolving. Here's an example:

Say your playing a game of cards and you're at a point where in order to survive in the environment(the game), you need a card that's a 12 or 15 in value. The problem is, there's no one card with a 12 or 15 in value. So you die out in the game because you can't evolve what you need to survive.

How could all of the exact mutations evolve that an organism needed to survive occur through random mutations without INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES that compete to survive? The answer is, IT CAN'T!

This makes a natural interpretation of evolution a fantasy.

How can evolution know what traits will be beneficial, neutral or harmul to the species before these traits reach the environment?

I have to repeat that!

How can evolution know what traits will be beneficial, neutral or harmul to the species before these traits reach the environment?

So Darwin is correct when he says:

and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

IT CRUSHES THE THEORY!

Random mutations can't be the cause of adaptations. Let's look at some examples as to how a species evolved EXACTLY WHAT IT NEEDED TO SURVIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHEN IT NEEDED IT!

When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria. There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment.



The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.



www.thoughtco.com...

This is what is still taught to kids.

An adaptation is a special skill that helps organisms to survive in their environments. Adaptations could be PHYSICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, or BEHAVIORAL. All living things (including humans) on this planet have adaptations.

Adaptations are influenced by environmental factors, including climate and food availability. Animals have needs like food, water, shelter, and breeding. To meet those needs, animals adapt to their environment.

smartclass4kids.com...

There's more:

Some More Examples of Physical Adaptation
Did you know… Meerkats have dark circles around their eyes, which act like sunglasses, helping them see even when the sun is shining very brightly.
“Hummingbirds have long, skinny beaks that help them drink nectar deep inside of flowers.”
“Pelicans have large pouch-like beaks to scoop up fish.”
“Hawks have hook-like beaks to rip apart their prey”
“A giraffe’s long neck allows it to reach food sources”

Humps to store fat in which a camel breaks down into water and energy in the scarcity of food and water.
Two rows of long eyelashes and thick eyebrows help them to keep out sand and desert sun.
Narrow nostrils and hairy ears also help them to keep out sand.
Thick and tough lips help them to pick at dry and thorny desert plants.
Broad and flat feet, so they don’t sink in the sand and walk easily.
They can go for a week or more without water. They can drink up to 32 gallons (46 liters) of water at one go.
Long legs protect them from sand heat.
Rarely sweat. Change their body temperature to avoid water loss through sweating.
They are well camouflaged. Their body color helps them to blend into their environment.
Thick fur helps to keep them warm at night.



smartclass4kids.com...

CONT'D

So why did the camel evolve the traits it needed to surive in a desert environment? Darwin's whole theory hinges on the camel not evolving what it needs to adapt to the environment. There should be traits that allow the camel to survive in the snow and many traits that are harmful to the camel. The traits that are beneficial are just dumb luck and they won out against these other traits via reproduction.

Darwin should have seen how illogical this was but to be fair, Darwin didn't have the information we have today. It's the atheist, pseudoskeptics and materialist that keeps the BIG LIE alive because of their belief.

We see all of these species down to extremophiles evolving the EXACT traits they need to survive when they're in different environments. We don't see any evidence of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES competing to survive in the environment as Darwin envisioned.

This would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

It's satanic and it separates people from God and their spiritual nature.

a reply to: neoholographic

Camels did not adapt to the desert they survived in the cold after the last ice age. Just turned out the same features made them excellent to live in deserts as well. Scientists have found fragments of a camel’s leg bone from over 3.5 million years ago in the Canadian Arctic. the Ice Age came, the camels moved south. On reaching the deserts they found themselves surprisingly suited to their new environment. For example, the big flat feet good for walking on snow also works well on sand. The camel’s hump is also useful in the desert. Almost all of its fat is stored there, rather than being evenly distributed over its body, so it stays cool in warm environments. The only major change was they lost a lot of fur as they were Wooley however being so hot in the desert the camels with thinner coats survived.


You really don't understand evolution I can see that. Evolution is not about a species evolving for its environment. Evolution says different traits appear in a species if these traits have an advantage for survival those animals will tend to breed more than the others. Animals with mutations that hurt their survival dies off. This is why there are far more animals that have gone extinct than currently exist. If they cant survive their surroundings they go extinct.

So stop trying to misinterpret evolution the idea of animals adapting was early in science before we learned about genes and DNA.

a reply to: dragonridr

This makes no sense and denies just about every textbook written on adaptations.

1.When hominids were in Africa for millions of years, they produced more melanin to survive in the hot environment.

2. When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria. There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment.

3. The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.

4. The camel has several adaptations to help it survive in its environment. It has two rows of long, thick eyelashes to protect its eyes from the blowing desert sand, and its nostrils can be closed to keep out sand. Its hooves are broad and leathery, creating natural "snowshoes" to prevent it from sinking in the sand. And its hump stores fat so it can go for long periods without food or water.

5. The front paws of polar bears are shaped to propel them through water. Like camels, polar bears' noses have adapted for their benefit: Their nostrils can be closed when they're swimming underwater for long distances. A layer of blubber and dense layers of fur serve as effective insulation, helping them maintain a normal body temperature in the Arctic.

6. The fennec fox distinctive large ears, which are usually 6 inches long (15 centimeters), radiate body heat and help keep the foxes cool.

Read what they teach kids about adaptations:

How Have Fennec Foxes Adapted to the Desert?

How Have Tortoises Adapted to the Desert?

How Have Kangaroo Rat Adapted to the Desert?

How Have Black-footed ferret Adapted to the Grassland?

How Have Coyote Adapted to the Grassland?

smartclass4kids.com...

Here you have extremophiles evolving EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED TO SURVIVE IN HARSH ENVIRONMENTS!

There are different classes of extremophiles based on the type of extreme environment in which they thrive. Examples include:

Acidophile: an organism that thrives in acidic environments with pH levels of 3 and below.
Alkaliphile: an organism that thrives in alkaline environments with pH levels of 9 and above.
Barophile: an organism that lives in high-pressure environments, such as deep-sea habitats.
Halophile: an organism that lives in habitats with extremely high salt concentrations.
Hyperthermophile: an organism that thrives in environments with extremely high temperatures; between 80–122 °C or 176-252 °F.
Psychrophile: an organism that survives in extreme cold conditions and low temperatures; between −20 °C to +10 °C or −4 °F to 50 °C.
Radiophile: an organism that thrives in conditions with high levels of radiation, including ultraviolet and nuclear radiation.
Xerophile: an organism that lives in extreme dry conditions.

www.thoughtco.com...

I can fill up post after post just listing extremophiles that have evolved exactly what they need to survive in these environments. Here's a recent example of a lizards adapting what they need to survive in 36 short years.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

You know why it evolved so rapidly? It's because we're designed to evolve the traits that we need to survive.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF AN ORGANISM TRYING TO ADAPT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENTS IN ANY NATURAL OR RANDOM WAY!

There's alsways this one to one correspondence between the organism needing x trait to survive and then that specific trait evolves.

With something natural and random, a, b, c, d.....x, y, z traits evolve and then over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, one of these traits just happen to magically be the right trait needed and is naturally selected via reproduction.

This is just a fantasy that's impossible and what we see is the organism needs x trait to survive and x trait evolves.

This is why they thought the lizard would take millions of years to evolve new traits to survive not 36 years. Where are all of the dead lizards or INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES that evolved the wrong traits that didn't help the lizard survive?

This is what happened, Adaptations were taught in schools for years. These teachings are based on what the evidence shows. When an organism needs to surive in an environment, the exact traits they need to survive evolve.

If you took a species that only lived in a hot environment and moved them to a cold environment, overtime, the traits that will allow them to survive in the cold climate will evolve and spread throughout the population.

Blind supporters of a natural interpretation of evolution realize that this makes the entire theory look asinine so they now want you to believe that these random traits evolve that just show up exactly when the organism needs it LOL! You can't make this stuff up. It's like my card example:

Say your playing a game of cards and you're at a point where in order to survive in the environment(the game), you need a card that's a 12 or 15 in value. The problem is, there's no one card with a 12 or 15 in value. So you die out in the game because you can't evolve what you need to survive.

Most species would die out. With randomness, there's no way all of these species we see down to extremophiles will evolve exactly the traits they need when they need it.

It's even worse than with the cards. With the cards, you know the possibilities beforehand. You can get an Ace-King in hearts, clubs, spades and diamonds. With random mutations, there's A MYRIAD of possibilities that can occur so there's no chance the estimated 8.7 million animal species will evolve EXACTLY THE TRAITS THEY NEED TO SURVIVE WHEN THEY NEED THESE TRAITS. The 8.7 million doesn't include extremophiles.

Inevitably, species would just die out and not evolve because the traits they need to survive wouldn't be available to them like with the game of cards when the person needed a card with a value of 12 or 15 to survive.

With evolution and random mutations, you have no clue as to what you need to survive. There's no information and no direction or purpose yet each time and organism needs X trait to survive in an environment, X TRAIT EVOLVES!

So, it's easy to understand why those who accept the fantasy of a natural interpretation want to change the facts and live in la-la land. They know if species evolve the traits they need to adapt in an environment when they need to survive, that's intelligent design and it has nothing to do with anything natural or random.

a reply to: neoholographic

We tend to assume that all characteristics of plants and animals are adaptations that have arisen through natural selection. Many are neither adaptations nor the result of selection at all. Camel is a great example The same characteristics that help it survive an ice age were effective in a desert as well. Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features. Without a working knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how or why living things have come to exhibit their diversity and complexity.

Animals do not suddenly change for their environment that's not how it works. An animal is born it might be taller or some other genetic defect may occur. Now if this defect is beneficial for their survival they live longer and breed and pass on their genes. If it is not they die early and that new genetic trait is tossed out. In other words, Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating animals, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next.

For example Waterworld with Kevin Costner, the main character has a birth defect He has webbing between fingers and toes allowing him to swim better. This helps his survival currently if someone is born with webbing doctors remove it. I used to know a girl with cat eyes it was a birth defect but she had awesome night vision.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's a whole post you never responded to Terra Liga.

You're correct, I didn't. All I read were instances of natural life which you attributed to a creator. I just ignored it.

Also, I have a demanding job and a family. I'm not sure you have either of those - no judging intended, just an observation of the time you spend on these posts and replies.

For the record, however, I don't know why you spend so much time here with such technical questions. After uni, I still had questions so I got myself more education from institutions and individuals who knew the subject matter intimately, without bias or opinion. This site is great, don't get me wrong, but it is the last place I would go to with questions like yours.

In all honesty, if you think you've found something others have missed go get an opinion from a professor at your local uni. I have no doubt they would be happy to read over your thesis or findings, because I've done exactly this a few times already. This could be your first step to something big.

Of course, you know that I don't think you'll do it. And even you know you won't do it. Because you have no evidence at all for any of your claims. You're all cowards and frauds preying on the weak and insecure.

But good luck!

a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

Also, I have a demanding job and a family. I'm not sure you have either of those - no judging intended, just an observation of the time you spend on these posts and replies.

For the record, however, I don't know why you spend so much time here with such technical questions. After uni, I still had questions so I got myself more education from institutions and individuals who knew the subject matter intimately, without bias or opinion. This site is great, don't get me wrong, but it is the last place I would go to with questions like yours.

Let me translate this:

I can't refute anything you're saying or debate the issue so my last gasp will be to use my family as an excuse as to why I can't respond. Do you think this is the only forum I post in? I debate these same issues in physics forums and other scientific forums and they can't answer or refute the posts just like you. So maybe you should start asking why a natural interpretation of evolution is so illogical or why can't these simple questions be answered.

Next, you try to belittle the debate on ATS which is typical from pseudoskeptics. At first it's like, ATS has all of these educated people that's debating these issues then when their arguments are destroyed, it's go talk to a Professor LOL! This is just saying that you can't accept that their arguments were destroyed so the answer must be in some Professors office. Typical pseudoskeptic obfuscation.

Also, it doesn't take long to write a post. If you don't have the attention span to write a long post, just say it. I don't think that's it though. You can't refute what's being said so you can't respond. If there were answers to my questions, you would type long posts in response. You have been responding but now your family is an excuse why you can't answer?

Finally, I have been on ATS since 2012 and like I said, it's easy for me to write a long post in minutes especially when you have facts on your side. ATS has always been a place with great debate and long detailed posts. In fact, I'm glad they started a new rule that cracks down on this and pushes people starting a thread to be more detailed. So don't try to belittle ATS because you can't debate. You have some well educated people on here and over the years I have learned a lot debating these issues. If you can't debate a detailed post or you're not willing to learn something new, then why are you here?