From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

hooberus

Review of Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf

Uh huh. So, then, since the article suggests that Darwinian Evolutionary theory is flawed, that Natural Selection doesn't work, and that living organisms are irreducibly complex...

what is the alternative scientific explanation being offered?

Dave

jaguarbass

Uh huh. So, then, since the article suggests that Darwinian Evolutionary theory is flawed, that Natural Selection doesn't work, and that living organisms are irreducibly complex...

what is the alternative scientific explanation being offered?

Dave I dont think there is an adequate scientific explanation. I think based on reading all kinds of information. That we were put here by beings from another dimension, who some call God or Gods, That is how the kinds got started, we were farmed or planted to be harvested, then along with that there is what you call evolution going on, others call it adaptation. There is deffinitely change going on in life sometimes caused by the enviroment sometimes by faulty replication of cell messages called mutations. The faulty replications are seldom beneficial. The adaptations changes to the enviroment are beneficial. I think we started out as men, cats started out as cats, dogs started out as dogs, wolfes etc. and amongst those kinds people like you observe evolution, change, adaptation to the enviroment. I dont know if the beings from the other dimension who got us started have our best interest at heart, in fact I am starting to suspect they are using us and harvesting something from some of us. Just as we harvest fish from the sea. It could be they are harvesting our souls or something else from us. I suspect they are using mankind for something. Maybe they use us for body parts just like we envision doing with cloning. This is why the bible has many problems with it and why darwinism has many problems with it. There are educated people on both sides of the issue pointing out the problems on the opposing side. Just because biologist observe bacteria adapt and change doesnt mean that the bacteria is ever going to walk out of the petri dish on all fours, or that an amoeba will ever became a frog. I hesitate to use the word evolution because evolution means change and things change and it side tracks the discussion and pursuit of information and knowledge regarding our origens. So not being a scientific response I am pretty sure it will not have any merit with you Dave. But it is helping me in my search organizing my thoughts. To all you who believe in evolution keep doing what your doing to advance science and cure sickness and disease. Maybe it will free and keep you free of religion. Maybe believing in Darwinism and Richard Dawkins will help you in that matter. It wont clutter your mind to what is really going on. But its leaving me empty in my quest and search for my origens and my search for enlightenment. I suspect that most evolutionist are materialist and pragmatist. I cant really say anything is wrong with that. It takes all kinds. And by all kinds coming together and sharing ideas, advancement and progress are achieved. I suspect I will take more from you than you will take from me. So thank you. In the end I could write a good science fiction book. In your end you could cure a disease.

Octarine Prince

Interesting.

As was said, and I will reiterate, because many evolutionists can't seem to shake this foolishness: adaptation does not equal evolution. They both have four syllables, and end in the same four letters, however. There.

The fossil record, as DARWIN HIMSELF commented, doesn't show transition in the way of transitional forms, missing links, etc. It shows the different species "popping up," and later, he personally documented what is known to be adaptation.

Similarity in design DOESN'T EQUAL proof of evolution, it only supports an argument for a common designer.

hamilcarr

Basic error: change is not degradation.

Panta rhei.

hooberus

Basic error: change is not degradation.

But what if the "change" is several harmful (as in information robbing) mutations in each individual in each generation?

Would you not call that degradation?

Satanus

I would call that extinction. The misfits often don't get to reproduce. If they fail in that, they are gone within one generation.

S

hamilcarr

But what if the "change" is several harmful (as in information robbing) mutations in each individual in each generation?
Would you not call that degradation?

That would be degradation indeed.

My point though is that not every change necessarily implies degradation.

Evolutionarily "beneficial" change is not uncalled for (or random if you like), but environmentally triggered.

PrimateDave

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, jaguarbass. I suppose one opinion is as good as another, so I'm not going to criticize yours. At this point I'm more curious about the emotional attachments that ID/Creationists have to their ideas. I still think that Evolution does the better job of explaining why I am sitting here at this keyboard typing at this very moment than any other idea I have been exposed to, but I'm not making a religion out of it.

Keep in mind that I did read Darwin's Black Box written by the famed ID microbiologist Michael Behe. This book is also mentioned in the article posted above. He makes what appears to be an excellent case for Intelligent Design, and at the time that I read it I believed it contained the last word on proof of Creation. I had an emotional attachment at that time to the idea of Creation because I had to believe in the God of the Bible despite all the mental distress caused by being a Witness.

Fast forward to the present. I now know that the Witnesses are wrong. I also know that the Bible is not the inspired work of a Divine Entity. In fact I now doubt whether such a Divine Entity exists. Even if it does, I can't see that it gives a damn about humans at all. In our arrogance we would like to imagine that it does/would, but there is no proof of purpose for anything except in the service of Entropy.

Since I no longer have an emotional attachment to Creationism, I have read rebuttals to the work of Michael Behe and other ID'ers. I spent considerable time reading with an open mind at the Talk Origins web site. The Theory of Evolution makes sense to me now, but I do not have an emotional attachment to it like I did with Creationism. Evolution makes no demands upon my life, nor does it promise anything extraordinary beyond the present life.

Articles like the one posted by hooberus read like an emotional appeal to the "faithful" not to leave their belief in God. There's a hook in that bait, and yet you expect me to swallow it. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

Dave

MissingLink

oh brother.

From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

Share this