Assuming that mutations just shuffled through all possible proteins to get the ones we have now . .. . there is no way on earth that similar proteins would all be SHARED by organisms. In other words, you should not have 1 million species that all use many of the SAME proteins. Do you really think that just by chance three million different branches on the evolutionary tree would still end up using the SAME proteins??? That . . . . . is impossible. It is equal to the chance of 3 million people each winning the same lottery number millions of times. ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
I don’t need to prove wrong the idea that chance disturbances to DNA COULD form the species when OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING ELSE WAS AT WORK. If such mutation did it there would be ZERO gene similarity between species . You simply must calculate how many possible protein combinations can exist in theory. Do it!!!
And then you have to ask yourself why some of them just . .. didn’t evolve. In fact how convenient . . . . they just show up in some new species and HAPPEN to stop evolving because the species needs that gene so badly!!! Oh but it gets so much better.
Evolutionists claim that ALL life came from a single early individual creature that was simple . . . . like a single cell. So by this logic bugs and people came from the same cell!!! So why DID BUGS STOP EVOLVING???
Its so convenient really . . . . they all just happened to evolve at just the right paces . . . to form ecosystems . . . THAT WORK.
Why did rats stop evolving???
Why did dogs stop evolving???
Why did chimps stop evolving???
Why did whales stop evolving???
We have here examples of creatures that NEVER increased in complexity by that much. .. . . WHY??? And why do they SHARE so many genes?? Ok there are a lot of genes they don’t share . .. . but
Tags: atheism, Christianity, Creationism, life, research, science
EVOLVING CREATIONIST 
August 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
Why on earth would you think that any animal has stopped evolving?
August 24, 2011 at 12:54 am |
Because we have simple life forms. Now, if you assume that the evolution tree goes back billions of years, you have to explain why some branches of this tree remained simple (ie like flies and fish). You only have three possible explanations for this if you believe in evolution.
(1) the species devolved . . . reducing in complexity
(2) the species sprung on its own in a completely different branch at a much latter point, thus conflicting with the popular notion of a single common ancestor
(3) It just stopped evolving upward and thus remained simple in complexity.
No matter which way you look at it, this simple fact, the existence of flies and fish and other simple creatures, brings the popular notions of evolution into question. At the very least, it should make one question common notions of the theory.
August 24, 2011 at 1:00 am |
But of course there are other problems which often go unnoticed due to atheist bias (no offense but it does create bias in the one believing it). I have bothered to question what I believe. But I have also bothered to question atheism. You see, I wanted to know the truth regardless of blind acceptance of any belief. Atheism is not immune from that.
August 24, 2011 at 10:10 am |
You are misunderstand evolution again.
You are assuming a linear process of evolution where one species changes into something more complicated leaving no trace of what once was. That is not the case at all.
When a species population moves or relocates they diverge and change, its this divergent species that becomes different, there is nothing that says the original population has to change too.
Evolution is driven by various factors and species will become adapted to make the most of the specific environments they are in. If a species finds itself in a niche that it can take great advantage of, the evolutionary pressure will reduce. If a species finds itself in an environment that it is not particularly suited to, then the evolutionary pressure to change will increase.
The process of evolution is dynamic and non-linear. It has no end goal.
The reason why there are species that you term simple, is because the environment requires it. They have not stopped evolving and nor have they devolved. They have evolved into their place as we see them now and they serve a purpose, hence they exist.
August 24, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
reducing in complexity = devolved. So if any change at all reduces complexity, that is devolving. When you say reduce you are effectively saying devolved. So you are arguing that devolving is adaptive . . . if and when it happens. And if it is non-linear then it can devolve (ie go up or down and therefore down is possible).
If evolution is as you say then it has some misconceptions. Just because things change on a small scale does not mean they will do the same on a large scale. This is a logical fallacy. I could just as easily say that, since I am able to walk one mile, the same process should get me to the closest star named alpha centuri. You are oversimplifying and overgeneralizing the observed change in species. This is why so many people believe in macro evolution. To them it is very simple and can be generalized. It’s not that simple as there are factors that prohibit the larger changes in the same way that there are factors that keep me from walking to the moon without any space ship. I can diverge from other people to a limited extend by just walking. But I could not manage walking on water or going to the moon. In the same way, divergence of species has limits. It is called the gene pool. In order to remove these limits you would have to add new complex 10,000-amino-acid-long specialized proteins, at least 20 or 30 of them (maybe more), to get a new functional part in a species. So it is not so simple. There are boundaries to this kind of major evolutionary change that you believe in. An addition of several completely different complex genes has never been observed in any species. It is just impossible for these genes to just form out of the blue via mutation. What has been observed instead is genetic homeostasis, and I am not making this up. Research this term and why it happens. The variability that you think can be generalized can’t be. It’s mathematically and biologically impossible because of a limited gene pool per species and the impossibility of genes form via random mutations. You WILL observe speciation. Sometimes a species will diverge and fail to mate again. But why? Usually the reasons are that the same gene pool has been divided up and may not be able to rejoin. Sometimes a kind of duplication will happen where two species will have most of the same genes and not be able to mate. Sometimes, in fact many times, the genetic diversity will actually diminish because the gene pool lost stuff along the way. But never NEVER will any general kind within a species ADD NEW UNIQUE GENES OUT OF THE BLUE.
Additionally, evolution theory appears, according to you, to assume that a species will always properly adapt . . . not the case. Surely bad mutations would come a long and reduce or eliminate a species? In fact there is plenty of evidence of bad mutations so it isn’t hard to imagine a species dieing off from one.
As for the example you gave once of a person changing and growing quickly in the whom as lending some believability to evolution, that is no evidence at all. That is the unwinding of data and resources “already contained” in the egg and sperm. That is why species make duplicates of themselves instead of birthing completely different life forms . . . as if that were even possible.
There are some basic facts about genes that you can’t just know intuitively. There is much science that is counter-intuitive. Ask the scientists and they will largely agree on that notion.
August 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
Sorry not whom but womb lol
August 24, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
I notice you also believe the grand canyon formed slowly according to one of your posts. Water can actually erode things like the grand canyon quite quickly. It need not be a slow process.
Research “stalagmites growing in basement of Lincoln Memorial”. Its counter-intuitive . . . hard to believe . . . but TRUE.
September 15, 2011 at 11:49 am
Re stalagmites on the Lincoln Memorial. Here is a quote I dug up regarding that:
“Many people have found that stalactites forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalactite growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate, and produce stalactites. This is why stalactites formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalactites 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalactites of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.”
So the key difference here seems to be the composition of the growths.
September 15, 2011 at 11:53 am
Yes, the grand canyon did form slowly.
Yes, it is conceivably possible that something that size could form very rapidly, it would require a significant volume of water rushing through rapidly, or a glacier.
The key thing in determining how it was formed is looking at the features that are left over. There are no features that indicate glaciation or rapid water erosion, but lots of features that indicate long slow erosion.
Its all a question of examining the features and comparing them with what different erosion methods leave behind. The one that matches is the one that happened.
October 8, 2011 at 4:16 am |
Sorry I haven’t replied lately. Ive been caught up in other things. You bring up some good points which I should consider.