Evomumbojumbo

Why do evolutionists insist on mind reading then coming out with same old cliches? If you don’t want to engage, don’t engage it’s a semi free world. Darwinism is simple to understand but wrong. No amount of icing can make the cake more edible, and after all this time nothing has. Which is why Gould abandoned it and explored models that fit the facts.

It’s posts like this that deter anyone from declaring their beliefs. Just assume I have enough reason to doubt the truth of all things gradual and naturalistic, driven by a desire for scientific truth Bufofrog snakes losing legs and birds growing wings are opposites. You use the word evolution for both. In this age of nuanced language can’t we have different words fir these outcomes, maybe we do. If not something like evolution up and evolution down would suffice if you don’t like devolution. oh and I’m glad you sorted your grip out. - must be a golf thing

Hi Studiot thanks for that - I’m back from post quarantine. lots to answer Ken you’ve made the job of proving anatomical change even harder by sending it back to an almost mythological age. Why isn’t there just continuous new forms, has evolution run out of ideas? Exchemist natural selection selects from an existing gene pool. Evolution needs new genes. i won’t be going anywhere until I break a site rule which I’m sure is inevitable MigL if apes have 98% our DNA then why wouldn’t retroviruses be in the same place, or maybe 2% out Inow nothing obstinate here Zapatos are we allowed to start talking Big Bang on this thread? I’d be happy to discuss the universal framework of physics, quantum, parallel universes and Laurence Krauss’s definition of nothing if you like but not sure we can Zero zero yiu should turn your laser beam of suspicion onto your own beliefs Zero zero it seems a good thing Nessa Carey came along or what would you have done for proof of evolution?

Sorry Zapatos I missed that one. All major DNA features were created at the beginning. There is no progression of species from simple to complex. That is why so many proofs of evolution are actually examples of devolution, whales legs, snake legs, our little fingers etc. There is no evolution fir the opposite, evolution.

Thanks - it’s facts I’m asking for not a statement that they exist. Please could you cite evidence that convinced you ‘nature’ can code.

As this topic was aimed at believers in creation, I would like to respond. Observations like the ones you cite are secondary observations built on the assumption of naturalism. I use that word because my disbelief of evolution extends further than the accepted limited definition of the term evolution. I have never read anything that accepts that it is all built on assumptions and attempts to address those assumptions without citing gaps in knowledge. Evolution requires the proactive engineering of new body parts including self replicating DNA instruction code containing new and novel information sequences. Where is the evidence for that? virus immunity is not creating any new structures or anatomical features, and so would never escape from being a virus, ever. I appreciate this is a science forum but I must take issue with Christian brothers believing in evolution. Happy to take offline.

When I read these posts regarding mutations I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that mutations are the mechanism by which DNA coding for new anatomical structures is created. it goes against all coding principles, garbage in, garbage out.

I don’t think DNA has done anything to support Darwinism. The uses of DNA in criminology and parenthood would not extend to animals. This is because there is an in built assumption that humans are related. That is true and so it works. To apply the assumption to apes to prove Darwinism is using an assumption to prove itself. Design could still be the answer.