Experimental example:
Since evolution depends on massive experimentation by the gene pool to accidentally invent superior modifications that give survival advantages to the million to one “lucky chimpanzee typed” DNA sequences, every living organism that has the luck of a bad sequence will to varying degrees die off.
Statically those two extreme rule sets encompass the entire theory of the evolutionary theroy. But as there is no Creator allowed in the equation. The overwhelming majority of DNA experiments that have no direct effect should be in evidence as the theroy postulates survival must blindly choose.
Look in nature, clearly there is NO evidence of a massive amount of useless random vestigial DNA experiments hanging off of every organism as DNA mindlessly experiments trying to stumble onto a software upgrade.
Experincial evidence 2:
As modern science grows in understanding we now know that even the tiniest error in a single DNA sequence can disrupt many interlinking genetic processes. This clearly demonstrates that DNA instability is suicide for organisms.
If the postulations of 18th century science were correct in that organisms were experimenting with DNA gene sequence modifications, it would cause a far higher than a thousand to one still birth ratio. That is 1000 still births to a single live birth. Genetic suicide.
In the 18th century we had a simplistic viewpoint of machines being built from plans. In the 21st century we understand software, whereas the plans are of an active process.
The difference is obvious with a little thought. If your plans are describing simple machine parts, a bigger leg or a smaller eye, so what. But if they are all describing a biochemical whole, then a bigger cog, or a crossed wire and the machine as a whole is not different IT’S FUNCTION and it’s relation to different FUNCTIONS is different. Just like software, a single error in sequence and the whole inter relationship fails.
The entire system must function for the machine to biochemically bootup. Any sequence deviation kills the organism at a million to one rate. DNA stability is critical to survival, indeed the interlocking biological interdependence serves as a checksum to defend the DNA from functional errors being passed on.
In short, what we now know about DNA and how it functions precludes virtually any chance for evolution.
The heck with transitional fossils, where are the five legged blind dogs or feathered snails? There is no evidence of experimental organisms in nature.
DNA is inherently stable, not inherently unstable in nature.
And might I add an early century maxim, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
With this more modern one: A wise man learns from a fool, but a fool cannot learn from a wise man.
Science can be argued, but faith is immutable. Evolution is based on faith, not science or it would have been forgotten a hundred years ago because of science.
[[Look in nature, clearly there is NO evidence of a massive amount of useless random vestigial DNA experiments hanging off of every organism as DNA mindlessly experiments trying to stumble onto a software upgrade.]]
bingo- well put
[[As modern science grows in understanding we now know that even the tiniest error in a single DNA sequence can disrupt many interlinking genetic processes.]]
Which is exactly why i keep stating that it would take billions of impossible ‘tries’ to get the right combinations of mutations to advance a species beyond it’s own kind- These impossibilities are not just slight improbabilities, they are infact impossibilities- and these impossibilities are for just one species kind- let alone many many species kinds that all had to defy impossible odds billions of times themselves-
Monkeys banging on keyboards for an infinite amount of time might produce Shakespeare- however, that still falls within the probability limits- mutations advancing a species beyond it’s own kind is so far outside the upper probability limits that it’s absolutely impossible for evolution to have occurred
[[The heck with transitional fossils, where are the five legged blind dogs or feathered snails? There is no evidence of experimental organisms in nature.]]
the3 best they can come up with is ‘feathered dinosaurs’ which had modified scales, and not true feathers- but of course they get around this fact by claiming the scales or ‘protofeathers’
Well thought out analysis- well done
Thank You!
That is what I was saying with My
“Bumper Sticker” Comments.
Whatever are you talking about?
Of course there is, massively, in every creature's DNA, every DNA mutation which did not kill off its carriers stays with us, and now helping track our ancestry and species relationships.
But in most species most offspring die without ever reproducing, for reasons ranging from predation to starvation, disease or mal-adaptive DNA mutations.
To survive & reproduce individuals need both good genes and good luck -- that's "natural selection".
American in Israel: "In short, what we now know about DNA and how it functions precludes virtually any chance for evolution."
No, the opposite is true, if you simply consider the millions of different species, from bacteria & amoebas to insects & mammals -- an almost infinite variety of different systems that work.
Some are very, very similar between species demonstrating that small differences can work just as well.
Others are very, very different demonstrating that no DNA similarities are needed to do similar functions.
American in Israel: "The heck with transitional fossils, where are the five legged blind dogs or feathered snails?
There is no evidence of experimental organisms in nature."
On the contrary, the fossil record tells us that every organism in nature is experimental, and almost every experiment eventually fails, to be replaced by newer experiments.
As for misshaped dogs, they are born on occasion, but almost never live to successfully reproduce.
It's called "natural selection" and is basic to evolution theory.