“You cannot take the bible as a literal document. It was written by men, translated by men, and is a reflection of their beliefs and fears in that ancient time.
That just isn’t going to work on an educated audience. You may as well try and convince us that the world is flat.
Evolution is a fact, and is still happening all around you today. “
Funny learned men were telling us the earth was flat long after the Bible was written. Isaiah 40:22 told us the earth was a sphere.
Just what have you seen evolve ? Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics . We are not gaining DNA we are losing it.
I’ll take the Bibles word a truth over that of some scientist with alter motive of gaining some funding.
So far none of those learned men who have set out to prove the Bible was false have succeeded in doing so.
My dad was a PHD who had trouble tying his shoelaces.
Learned men can be lacking in knowledge in many things.
...and elementary geometry tells me that a circle is most certainly not a sphere.
Care to review basic geometry or is "Man lived in the world of 100+ species of meat eating dinosaurs" your final answer?
Hint: a circle is 2-dimensional and as "flat" as you can get.
How can evolution possibly "go against" the second law without life itself going against the second law?
Consider first, what ultimately drives evolution? Mutation, right? Mutations create the variation which evolution requires. Now, which would necessarily generate more entropy: copying DNA exactly, every time, without ever making a single error; or copying DNA with occasional errors, i.e. mutations? Obviously life never mutating, and therefore not creating variation, and therefore not being able to evolve, or at least keep evolving, would violate the second law more (if it were violated at all) than would life that makes occasional copying errors.
What else does evolution require, besides mutation/variation? Well, it requires reproduction. (Obvious.) It requires heritability. (Selected variants pass on the traits which led to their increased reproductive success.) It requires superfecundity. (Organisms produce more offspring than the environment can ultimately support, providing the excess population on which natural selection acts.)
But, wait, living organisms are doing all those things anyway, irrespective of the fact that they may lead to evolution!
Therefore evolution can only "go against" the second law if life itself (evolving or not, that is just the mere fact of life existing and continuing) first "goes against" it.
Since life clearly does not violate the second law, there is a flaw in your logic.
We are not gaining DNA we are losing it.
You know this how? I'm no expert, but I doubt it.
First, there are many types of mutations, and most neither increase or decrease the amount of DNA. For instance: point mutations (no addition or subtraction, just the change of one nucleotide for another), inversion (a DNA sequence gets copied backward) and translocation (a sequence is moved from one chromosome to another, or to a different location on the same chromosome).
OTOH, deletion mutations subtract DNA, but insertion and duplication mutations add DNA. So you must be claiming that deletion mutations are more common than insertion mutations, and are always or systematically so. Do you actually know this to be the case? (If so, how?) Or are you just ASSuming it so?
From what little I know about the DNA copying, editing and error correction mechanisms, I would suspect that deletion mutations are more easily caught and corrected than duplications and insertions. But that's just a guess. If you know better, educate me.