MC Hawking is awesome.
Quote:
|
Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split....
|
They do not create exact copies. There is genetic variation due to recombination, migration, or alteration in the karyotype. The beneficial traits in the descendant are preserved via natural selection, ergo a species evolves. I'm not entirely sure about my next statement, but my guess would be that meiotic cell division catalyzes this process significantly.
Quote:
|
there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell
|
Simply because something is too hard for you to believe does not mean it can not happen. If you are referring solely to DNA replication, then you are correct. All the information needed for DNA replication is stored in the cell. However, the environment certainly has an effect on the genotypes and phenotypes of an organism. Genes which harm an organism in its current environment will make it more likely that the organism dies earlier than its competitors, which makes it less likely that the particular gene will be passed on. This is, once again, the process of natural selection.
Also, don't think of natural selection to occur on a species-level. It's far easier to think of it on a genetic level.
Quote:
|
otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now...
|
Not necessarily. Creationists often throw this argument out. Believe it or not, though, speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples:
Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring
A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock
The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man
Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.
Quote:
|
Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism.
|
No. Their creation can certainly be outlined, but science can't really put together anything piece by piece. For example, you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a
long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.
Quote:
|
But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.
|
1.) This is largely irrelevant to the topic of speciation, which you actually stated you agree with in one of your above responses.
2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons.
3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.
Quote:
|
To convince me of evolution, you would have to have at least one single shred of fossil evidence to support the theory. Today there is no single peice of fossil evidence to support the theory. That is why evolution anchors itself on hopeful monsters which use to be referred to as the missing link.
|
Jesus fucking H. Christ (If you catch me for blasphemy, FUCK YOU. I'm allowed to use my own name in vein). Again with the moronic missing link and no fossil evidence claims. From the thread:
http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042
"Many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity."
However, if you lift even one finger (quite literally...thats all it takes to hit the keyboard) to look for the evidence, you will find it. There is no practical way I can list all the fossilized evidence towards evolution, but lets start by some:
Archaeopteryx fossils
coelacanth fossils
Fish Fossils
Gish on Precambrian fossils
Hominid Fossils
Horse fossils
Polystrate fossils
punctuated equilibria
trilobites
whale fossils
and oh yes...transitional fossils
Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree is certainly
not evidence towards evolution.
Certainly not.
I'll get to the rest of the posts later. I'm going to play basketball.