Ya, some of them are hilarious. Oddly though, evolutionists want us to believe that their bizarre fantasies are real.
Posted on 08/13/2014 5:40:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When people joyously discover on Ancestry.com that they're related to, say, a medieval archduke or a notorious Victorian criminal, evolutionary biologists may be permitted to snicker. Because in actuality, we are all related: Humans all share at least one common ancestor if you go far enough back. You are related to every king and criminal who ever lived, to Gandhi and Paris Hilton and Carrot Top. You are even related to me.
But buckle up — that's only the beginning.
Humanity, after all, is but one ugly branch on the big tree of life. Go back far enough, and you'll find an ancestor common to you and to every creature on Earth. You are related to your cat — which may help explain why you get that stare all the time. You are related to a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and to the mosquito you just murdered, and to your houseplants. At any given meal, you may eat all or part of a dozen extremely distant relatives.
It's remarkable how poorly understood evolution is today — how easily "debated" it is — given that its rules have been in place at least since life on Earth began, and that the truth of it is easily demonstrated. In fact, the basic theory has been in a state of continuous reconfirmation since Darwin proposed it in 1859, with geology, biology, anthropology, carbon dating, Pangaea, and every dinosaur bone ever found providing a nonstop barrage of additional proof points.
Here are the rules, in a nutshell:
• Genes, stored in every cell, are the body's blueprints; they code for traits like eye color, disease susceptibility, and a bazillion other things that make you you.
• Reproduction involves copying and recombining these blueprints, which is complicated, and errors happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
[1] “Genes, stored in every cell, are the body’s blueprints; they code for traits like eye color, disease susceptibility, and a bazillion other things that make you you.”
Mostly true but incomplete. Gene do not account for all aspects of personality, the “you.” See Twin studies for example.
[2]”Reproduction involves copying and recombining these blueprints, which is complicated, and errors happen.”
True statement.
[3]”Errors are passed along in the code to future generations, the way a smudge on a photocopy will exist on all subsequent copies.”
Partially true. There are errors and adaptions. Adaptions using already existing code in the DNA like Darwin’s elongated Finch beaks, City dweller nose hair density, etc. revert back when the stimulus is removed. An analogy would be like putting up a convertible top when it rains and storing it again when its sunny. This is not error nor new, but adaption.
[4]”This modified code can (but doesn’t always) produce new traits in successive generations: an extra finger, sickle-celled blood, increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans.”
This is mostly untrue. Adaptions are not “new” but rather based on existing information that is in the DNA and activated. They revert when stimulus is removed.
[5]”When these new traits are advantageous (longer legs in gazelles), organisms survive and replicate at a higher rate than average, and when disadvantageous (brittle skulls in woodpeckers), they survive and replicate at a lower rate.”
Partially true. The traits that pass on are the ones already existing in the DNA that were been switched on by stimulus.
Example:
“We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. Resistance was detected to a wide range of structurally different antibiotics including daptomycin, an antibiotic of last resort in the treatment of drug resistant Gram-positive pathogens.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953
Nothing in Genesis implies that animals were created immortal. Just Man. In fact a universe with life without death would have to run on rules we can’t even imagine.
And if you believe that was the case before sin then you have to throw out the traditional Christian belief that God reveals himself through His Word AND trough his creation. Because the natural world we see has virtually no connection to the one He created.
As a one time believer/defender of Evolution, I have a very good understanding of that religion.
As a Christian, I not only understand my current faith but have come to realize my previous beliefs were radically wrong.
1. Sickle Cell Anemia
2. Cystic Fibrosis
3. Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency
4. Tay-Sachs Disease
5. Autism
6. Rape
7. Murder
8. Stupidity
Could we add liberalism as a mutation?
Yes - lack of a brain would qualify as a mutation...
Endogenous retrovirus.
Wow, that Darwin. Who else could have thought of something so radical?
You don't believe in it
Very well, if you insist, I don't believe in evolution.
And the last one is usually fatal.
Ya, some of them are hilarious. Oddly though, evolutionists want us to believe that their bizarre fantasies are real.
pure fraud.
After countless generations of fruit fly breeding and experiments, the lowly fruit fly is still a fruit fly. I'm still awaiting true lab proof of macroevolution. The quoted statement is wishful thinking.
“Genes, stored in every cell, are the body’s blueprints; they code..."
Stop right there. You don't get "blueprints" or a "code" without an Architect or a Coder. There has never been a demonstrated instance of any code (a code being defined as "input alphabet 'A' = output alphabet 'B') that was not the product of a Mind. EVERY code where the source of the code is known is the product of a MIND.
And there is even polymorphic code, which has the ability to mutate intentionally put into the code by the coder.
I've read Darwin's OOS. You should go back and read Chapter 6, "Difficulties on Theory." Darwin knew his limitations; his students don't.
Macro-evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong.
+1 on Turek’s book.
And Justin Bieber!
It is the evolutionists who reject creation, not the creationists who reject evolution.
<><><><
Clearly you are newbie to FR’s crevo wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.