Most evolutionists hinge on some belief about shared ancestry. This DOES NOT prove evolution. It's backwards. There is NO evidence for a working, functional evolution. And, in fact, all of the "evidence" for common ancestry can be attributed to common Design elements. If you can't solve the problem going forward, to where it actually becomes useful, and real, then you believe in a new age fairy tale, taken all together. A false religion of so-called science that is a DILLUSION. Fate is not without a sense of irony, I suppose. The Bible has always made the same claim about what it is, and where it comes from, and still stands firm on testable, repeatable, observable scientific phenomena.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
Heredity? Lol. Breeding animals and agriculture? Are those examples of evolution as described by Darwin? You're in over your head with this topic.
The Theory of Evolution is blatantly flawed and is a lie as it is taught today. No more true than the theory of "fossil fuels"
When we selectively breed we are creating an artificial selective pressure that allows us to sculpt species to our needs over time.
Nature does this too - just by dint of these creatures having to live in an environment. The environment shapes them.
In only a few thousand years humans have taken wolves and turned them into chihuahuas and Great Danes and dachshunds and pit bulls.
But canines remain canines, germs remain germs. The horizontal variability is probably infinite, for all intents and purposes, but the scam and illusion of the story of evolution is that this goes upward, building new body plans incrementally. So, because phenotypes, in their variability, can overlap among creatures (as would be expected for form, function, and environments), the evolutionary assumption is made. It's wrong. I can see how it is seeming, but when you look at what we know now, about the difficulty and complexity in the simplest of lifeforms, of heredity, the assumption should be clearly seen as unsupportable.
You are not really understanding that those classifications of "dog" or really the entire idea of Linean classification was a misunderstanding of life.
We can look at the genetic code as we look at software revisions and see very clearly what families of what animals emerged from common ancestors because the code that makes up "dog" has a HUGE amount of overlap for the code that makes up "wolf" - we know they had a common ancestor because we can see how the code tree branches when we look at large numbers of individual "dog" instances.
But the idea of "dog" is not the same as the idea of "car". EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS COMPLETELY UNIQUE.
Even identical twins with the majority of the same code will have variations that make a difference. Those differences - very very small changes - accumulate.
Its not at all. Its highly constrained. For instance - if you have a change in code that causes the centrioles to not be able to form - the cells that result cannot bootstrap into an organism.
We cannot interbreed with Chimpanzess because we have 2 genes that match 2 of theirs but ours are fused into one chromosome. Because the large scale organization of the codebase has that difference - even though the majority of the code in the files is the same - there is no way to recombine to make a viable hybrid cell.
This is not true at all. There is no "upward". Your cells do build you incrementally - starting from one cell and bootstrapping to 150 trillion - but each organism that is alive is just the lastest test of that instance of life. It might have a change that gives it a 1% advantage at having offspring - and over time the genes that code for that 1% chance will become prevalent in the population.
The genes make the body.
There is no such thing as a "creature". Every instance of "cat" is just a generalization of a large class of genes that when run together will build out a cat. But the variation between "cat" and non "cat" begins only when the combination of two sets do not produce viable offspring.
But you are making a fundamental error in understanding when you think that any lifeform's label matters. It does not matter at all. The concept of species does not depend on how something looks. It depends on whether or not two instances of an animal can replicate. If they cannot - they are different species.
Heredity is the physical process of evolution, an offspring's genes created from a mixing of the DNA of both parents. Darwin in particular focused on natural selection via adaptation, which is likely the form of evolution most responsible for species differentiation. Natural selection is one type of evolution, as is artificial selection (breeding of animals).
Yes, natural selection and adaptation are all observable, natural processes. Artificial selection too, is observable and has been known by mankind for thousands of years. Species differentation is not species derivation however - far from it. The Lie, and what Darwin is most known for, is what you aren't addressing with your copy pasta reply.
Copy pasta? I wrote all that myself. :(
What lie? That species descended from other species based on adaptations to their environment? That is where the evidence points. The only possible issue there is with species classification, there is not a clear dividing line between species like we would want. But if rather than saying "species" you use "group of animals" then I don't know what part of evolution you would argue about?
Heredity yes. Differentiation of species yes. Adaptation of species yes. The environment (and especially fluctuations in climate) is the major driver of adaptation or extinction. This is yes.
"Evolution" as you describe it, explains changes within the species. Yes, species evolve.
"That species descend from other species" NO
There is zero evidence suggesting a genetic mutation (the only biological mechanism by which the theory could work) caused self awareness, or at the very least is responsible for the overwhelming diversity of millions of life forms on earth. It's as silly as believing the fossil fuel myth.
Agenda driven propaganda buddy
All the change we observe is horizontal. There is nothing in biology that shows vertical change is possible. Horizontal can be thought of as the range between a wolf and a poodle, and vertical as a wolf to cougar. So there is overlapping variability.