{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 12:37:08 AM
4
Evolution doesn't take millions of years, it takes billions. So to put that into perspective, the age of earth is 4.54 billions years old.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/2/2015 7:04:43 AMWhen a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the insects most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before. Almost all illustrations of “evolution in action” in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearance of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversible population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although “adaptive variation” would be a better term. It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as “evolution,” because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God’s participation being needed at any step along the way. The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin’s theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony. The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. [b]This Darwinism mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information[/b] or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis.
-
Edited by darklordmtt: 5/1/2015 10:43:41 PM[quote] ... without God’s participation being needed at any step along the way. [/quote] You mean the god that doesn't exist outside of a few thousand square miles in the Middle East deserts throughout most of history, right? Or, wait a sec, are you referring to the gods of the Hindu faith that number in the millions & claim dominion over things as mundane as pie plates & soap bubbles? Or the ancient gods of nature worshipped by pagans & later co-opted by Christians out of convenience & a need to coerce local native populations with a carrot instead of stick? -- -- -- <eye roll> Your profound ignorance about the process of evolution, the role of genetics & epigenetics in those processes, & the overwhelming evidence in support of natural selection as a driving force in the natural world is staggering & somewhat depressing. Go pick up a book - a legitimate science text book, mind you, not some bullshlt time containing droplets of mental dingleberries foisted upon the page by some intelligent design hack - pick it up & educate yourself. Or better yet, go to an institute of higher learning, plunk down your money, & delve into the wondrous advances we've made using the scientific method over the past centuries. Once you put aside the intellectually stultifying habit of simply saying "God did it", you'll find there is much to be learned & ceaseless knowledge to be gained. Or, y'know, you can stew in a bath of ignorance & confusion a few more decades of your life.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/2/2015 7:10:42 AMAnd yes, I used a public school text book, and you know how much our acclaimed great but really stupid public school went through? Less that 40%, and guess what? I was really looking forward on about evolution. You know what? I'll go pick up one anyway. Oh...wait, I already have one, and it didn't even answer my questions: Stating again: If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?
-
You're gonna want to sum that up bud. It's too long. Just make your point.
