Posted on 02/02/2013 9:30:30 AM PST by bray
I don't think evolutionists can prove common origin anymore ~ they could back before we knew about DNA and began building a genome library and anayzing it.
Actually, thinking about it, the evolutionists pretty much stuck to the higher animals and plants ~ before they knew about DNA ~ and they came up with some pretty fanciful ideas. This business of humans being apes is one of them ~ because, as it turns out, we have some chemistry in us that dates to when EVERYBODY like us was still a monkey ~ but today's apes, and the more apelike advanced monkeys do not have that chemistry.
Raises a real good question about how we could have ape ancestry when only monkeys have that part of our ancestry, and the apes don't, and vice versa.
We cannot have a common ancestry with apes while at the same time missing some of the more serious ingredients in ape makeup ~ and here we're not talking about gross physical attributes ~ but things that make the kidneys and livers work, or help us hold our meat together! I think that last one ~ the adhesives is the most important ~ we got monkey glue~!
No, I hate statists and I pity the ignorant, willfully or otherwise.
Other than that, I'm good.
In order to further the discussion based on the intent of your original post.
I suggest the issue breaks down between two positions.
1. There is a God/Creator and we acquired objective morality, as well as the cognitive ability to explore his nature and our own.
2. We exist as a matter of random chance over time and therefore morality is relative, a social construct for the benefit of the whole. It also requires determination, “you are your genes” and have no choice or “Free Will”.
In the first position, there is humility and consciousness.
In the second, there is the fatalism and selfishness that you have no choice over.
So, how did we get this far ?
Evolution, regardless of all its claims of creating more complexity or higher levels of understanding, is all about death.
They try to make it about “survival”, but that is a false flag.
So, we have a modern culture that has been conditioned to set aside their own nature in order to “get along”.
This is the issue.
This is well within the parameters of multi-level coding implicit in DNA.
Give you an example of how important this is ~ when you go looking for gold ~ and who hasn't ~ if you go for the flakes you can see, you need substantial capital investment and machinery of different sorts. if, on the other hand, you go for nanoparticles, which has been done, it's totally different. They call the finest particles, which you cannot see by themselves, 'gold flour' ~ which means you have to have an awful lot of them to see them to know you've collected some gold.
Termites can mine gold nanoparticles and poop them out in their nests BTW which is a recent discovery discussed earlier on FR.
The big difference between the particles and the nano particles is that the particles don't float, and the nano particles do float.
When using water in your process of extracting gold from the background matrix the technological solutions are different depending on the size of that gold particle.
The difference takes place at a level of smallness that the vanderwaals forces are relevant.
Self assembly into molecular machines like DNA, or little tiny motors that work on heat differentials seems to be built into the demiurge of the atoms themselves. Eventually I think they'll find that life can be caused to self assemble ~ possibly through the mediation and cogitation of supercomputer segments actually found within DNA.
Worms are still worms
Plants are still plants
Fish are still fish.
Can evolutionist account for the new information (read DNA) required to move a “simple” life form to a more complex one ?
It's gotta' be one whale of an error correction mechanism since, in general, DNA based life has been around for about 4 billion years on this planet ~ and it didn't turn into some other kind of life in all that time.
Really ?
You seem to be where I was a number of years ago.
Trying desperately to convince myself that I was free to do what I pleased.
I suggest you look at the math or probabilities necessary for random mutations, conserved and selected in any given environment that would result in an increase of information. Evolution is all about death.
Whether DNA churns up a Brown Fish or a White Bear has no bearing whatsoever on the mechanism of self-assembly. Sexual reproduction has mechanisms, themselves, self assembled in some fashion, that correct errors in coding at the time of reproduction and thereby FIGHT BACK against the process mistakenly called 'evolution' ~ presumably the self assembled protective mechanisms change through time ~ and can fix errors differently thereby leading to entirely diferent critters.
You have to get beyond Darwin's mistake of accepting the gradualist premise of the geologists of his time. if you dope a chip base a tad different you get an entirely different chip with different capacitances ~ the premise should apply to DNA rebuilds in mieosis as well.
Right, but why? The energy-cost of making these sexual organs themselves, WITH NO REASONABLE GUARANTEE OF WORKING (and even likelihood of failing), is the question. Asexual reproduction is "the safe bet" and, since evolution is a process, there's not any reason to implement it: that is, evolution cannot 'see' that added effort/complexity* now yields some benefit in the future. (*Something that is 'optional' won't be used in the first rounds of evolution and should fall victim to degenerating ["vestigalization"?], and an entire system [sexual reproduction] is of no use if it doesn't fully work.)
Many animals are simultaneous hermaphrodites (worms, snails, clams), and some fish are sequentially hermaphroditic, and change gender during their lives.
Except self-fertilizers it's irrelevant to the discussion: in order for sexual reproduction to work it has to be multiple members having sex. -- Thus energy is wasted on sexual-organs, from a evolutionary-standpoint, if there are not other sexed organisms of that species to mate with: at that point it actually becomes true that sexual organs should be the ones selected against.
Watch all you can from David Berlinski.
Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.
You can start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
There is so much more.
It’s up to you.
You take it up the Butt ?
Or, you know, maybe God meant it when he said "seed after its kind" in Genesis. ;)
The reality of self-assembly is that in some manner the information necessary to provide for the details is implicit in the being of matter itself ~ or, accessible by matter from different dimensional levels (the half dozen 'rolled up' dimensions perhaps, and who knows what's going on over there eh).
The MIND OF GOD would be expressed in this universe in such a manner. it's not a clock.
The guy that wrote the book on Chemical Evolution came out later and destroyed his own theory.
I’m looking for his name and details.
However, it remains among the hopeful.
I believe the mustard plant has more genes than any other plant, and more than any of the chordate animals, and more than just about anyting except the largest virus ~ which is just about the size of the smallest bacteria.
Interesting choice that mustard seed ~ a veritable factory of self-assembly ~ can grow anywhere and everywhere!
At some point in time the Darwinists are going to have to admit they are frauds. The proof is pointing the other way.
DNA is far more complex than paint ~ with a vast array of exceedingly complex chemistry. If paint can do it, so can DNA!
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.