If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

Mott the Hoople said:
a mutation is a mutation. Some have beneficial results. They are naturally selected. Some mutations cause harm and most mutations have no effect. They are not selected. That's how evolution works. You may want to read it again.
Click to expand...
Surely we are all saying that bad mutations fall by the wayside and good ones are propagated or selected?

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Micawber said:
Absolutely. Just go to any well utilized database like pubmed and do a word search. Plug in evolution and be flooded with thousands of finds in seconds. Put in intelligent design or jebus and get zip.

It's foundational. I'm just a lawyer, but my wife is a professor of neuroscience at a major university. My dad is a PhD nuclear physicist who worked on everything from Gemini 9 and 10 to mucho clandestine shit. Wife's dad Harvard MBA. All by way of saying my niche isn't exactly generally representative. But I will offer almost, and to a man and woman, nobody I know at all, in any discipline, regards evolution as invalid. In fact, of the dozens of scientists with whom I am acquainted from all of the most august educational institutions on earth, all would consider denial of evolution and god forbid, embrace of ID or creationism a disqualification for any employment in biological sciences. Just being honest.

If you deny evolution you are flat out ignorant. And I can't say that for climate change, but very nearly can.
Click to expand...
No you can't say that you arrogant twat, there are many eminent scientists that do not subscribe to CAGW.


www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comme...rbon-among-the-biggest-climate-experts-around

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Milagro said:
Evolution has given your face a permanent sneering expression, hopefully that won't be passed on.
Click to expand...


More like a big grin. That third arm shit was stupid enough to be funny. He seems to have the typical creationists understanding of what the theory of evolution suggests.
 
TheDonald said:
True all beetles are evolving, but there is no evidence that one species of beetle can become another, or grow into a rhino..................or a spider or a potato
Click to expand...


Yes, there is plenty of evidence of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/


No one has suggested that a beetle will become a rhino or that a rhino came from a beetle. That's just some stupid creationist's strawman.
 
TheDonald said:
Tell us again how Trump can't win....................................

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Click to expand...

Jesus - sober up, you sodden bore! This is, I take it, part of the trumpite unfact campaign. I never expressed any opinion on just how low your subhuman backwoods would go, faced with the chance to vote for a fat fascist bully rather than a woman.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Yes, there is plenty of evidence of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/


No one has suggested that a beetle will become a rhino or that a rhino came from a beetle. That's just some stupid creationist's strawman.
Click to expand...

Is it?

In Origins, Darwin starts from the premise of animal husbandry where farmers used breeding techniques to 'evolve' better farm animals. So basically, Darwin observed artificial selection and went onto extrapolate that natural selection was the mechanism that could do the heavy lifting to get from bugs [or whatever] to the higher animals.

While it's technically true that bugs didn't become rhinos, at some point or other some pretty profound morphological change had to occur and evolution needs to explain it---since all other explanations have been ruled out of bounds.

I'm a tad skeptical of it---and it has NOTHING to do with religion since my religious philosophy is amenable to an old an old earth and the rest of it.
 
Darth Omar said:
Is it?

In Origins, Darwin starts from the premise of animal husbandry where farmers used breeding techniques to 'evolve' better farm animals. So basically, Darwin observed artificial selection and went onto extrapolate that natural selection was the mechanism that could do the heavy lifting to get from bugs [or whatever] to the higher animals.

While it's technically true that bugs didn't become rhinos, at some point or other some pretty profound morphological change had to occur and evolution needs to explain it---since all other explanations have been ruled out of bounds.

I'm a tad skeptical of it---and it has NOTHING to do with religion since my religious philosophy is amenable to an old an old earth and the rest of it.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. You and others try to interject supernatural causation and cry foul when scientists point out that isn't science. The truth is a scientific explanation that provide a better and useful model than an existing one is always accepted.

The criticism of your argument is that you present a fallacious understanding of evolutionary theory tied to a religious agenda using religious philosophies like intelligent design creationism that are not testable science.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What a load of crap. You and others try to interject supernatural causation and cry foul when scientists point out that isn't science. The truth is a scientific explanation that provide a better and useful model than an existing one is always accepted.

The criticism of your argument is that you present a fallacious understanding of evolutionary theory tied to a religious agenda using religious philosophies like intelligent design creationism that are not testable science.
Click to expand...

Where did you get all that from? I even cited Darwin.

Should I not have read him lol?

The crap is labeling anyone who is skeptical a 'creationist'. You guys do the same thing with global warming skeptics by labeling them deniers.
 
Darth Omar said:
Is it?

In Origins, Darwin starts from the premise of animal husbandry where farmers used breeding techniques to 'evolve' better farm animals. So basically, Darwin observed artificial selection and went onto extrapolate that natural selection was the mechanism that could do the heavy lifting to get from bugs [or whatever] to the higher animals.

While it's technically true that bugs didn't become rhinos, at some point or other some pretty profound morphological change had to occur and evolution needs to explain it---since all other explanations have been ruled out of bounds.

I'm a tad skeptical of it---and it has NOTHING to do with religion since my religious philosophy is amenable to an old an old earth and the rest of it.
Click to expand...


No one has suggested that insects have turned into any other kind of animal. Insects share a common ancestor with other animals. No other animals evolved from insects.

There is no need to explain what has not been suggested.
 
Darth Omar said:
Where did you get all that from? I even cited Darwin.

Should I not have read him lol?

The crap is labeling anyone who is skeptical a 'creationist'. You guys do the same thing with global warming skeptics by labeling them deniers.
Click to expand...


You are not a scientific skeptic. Your doubts are all based on your faith and apparent ignorance or it is just propaganda to push a political/religious agenda.

You should read some explanation of the theory of evolution that does not come from a creationist source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top