Some (collected) comments I made elsewhere for you to chew on... Have at it and enjoy.. B| Evolution claims that progress is made, with mostly, random mutation, which leans toward advancing the specimen up the evolutionary ladder. The evolutionary process raises us to a higher level of complexity. Life is trial and error. Life is supposed to be able to discern between an advancement which will be of use, and a diminishing or lessening of the organisms makeup. These changes for good and bad are logged into the genetic pool over time, by default. Natural selection suggests that good changes continue on, and bad changes fade away. The only thing is, when random mutation occurs it is always a result of a mistake in reading genetic code. Something is left out in the code transfer, which then creates the mutation. There is no advancement, no refining, no additional code added, in fact pertinant genetic information is lost, on transfer which may, or may not be of benefit to the lifeform affected, when mutation is considered. That goes against everything evolution states. Life is not advancing through genetic mutation, it is degrading. A condition of less information passed is somehow, supposedly driving the evolutionary order up to a higher level. One does not get from chaos to order by subtacting from chaos. Life does not advance through the process of degradation. Ill expect another theory will be advanced toward explaining this basic level of incorrectness... Ya know, another rewrite of what is supposed to be sound, science. If you take evolution via random mutation out of the equation, you dont have the time necessary to account for the vast, and grandiose change you submit occurred. It would be a nice theory if it wasnt constantly evolving due to fatal flaws inherent within it. Dirt and water makes mud. You cant take water out of mud, and logically, expect something of a higher order than the original dirt, to magically appear. I consulted the Flying Spaghetti Monster on this... he concurs and openly wonders if you people are for real.... Random mutation occurs when genetic information fails to be passed along. It does not occur due to any information added to the genetic makeup. It is in essence, a degradition of the original design. If that creates an occasional improvment, that would be acceptable, but the likelyhood of fortunate mishaps, constantly reoccurring being the driving force behind the creation of the animal kingdom, just cant be. In my opinion, random chance as the mode of operation behind the transformation of pond scum into conscious, self awareness, just cant work effectively enough, through degradition, to accomplish what is, in the amount of time available. Also, the amount of dead-ends to rework, and overcome this process of subtraction would absolutely have to still be happening, and I would think be at the very least, noticeable or witnessed in something, somewhere. Its like the thousands of monkeys typing for thousands of years, image of randomly, by chance having something like MacBeth coming out of one of the typewriters. It could possibly happen, but think of all the attempts that missed the mark by one word, added to those which missed by only one letter. I personally would have to place it firmly in the totally imposible, realm of existence. I know they used to say that evolution was a staggeringly slow process, but theyve come to find that the exact opposite is true. It seems to happen with great leaps, across the board... I have thought long and hard about the concept of a first, single celled, protozoan generating every plant and animal since. I am unable to agree with that assessment. I wouldnt be surprised if the singular, common ancestor lying at the root of genesis, is no longer applicable. That first instance would have to be complete with a fully functioning, reproduction system in place. If the very first living organism, died without reproducing, that opens the door for a second instance, which opens the door for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or trillions of new instances of first life. If it was not a singular happening, that could lean toward each and every plant and animal evolving out of its own ancestor. You would have a far better chance of converting me to a believer in evolution if that were factored in... Which makes me ask... Do non-alive, protocells evolve and if not explain how the first instance of life, knew of the necessity of reproduction, had the desire to reproduce, and the realization that death exists, and reproducing is the only way it can be conquered..? One more thing, Where did the ability for a first organism, without a central nervous system gain the ability, and understand the need to read, duplicate, and transmit the DNA code? The way I see it, evolution as the core force behind life, is an impossibility. The instinct to reproduce has to be evolved, as well. Non living globs of goo do not, as far as I am concerned develop instinct.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:05:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015