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:
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.