If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

algae is on the path that the evolutionists proclaim.......I'm sorry you don't have the balls to defend your strawman.....no liberal does......

Sorry I don't have the time or inclination to try to share a fantasy reality to debate with a magical thinker. We lack a shared frame of reference. If you suppose at any point a magical creature inserted his super powers in the processes of life sciences, I can't disprove it. And as stated, the amount of knowledge you are lacking is too exhaustive to fill.

Funny you think thinking involves gonads. That's typical for your backward ilk.
 
The extreme variation of forms is made intuitively plausible considering the incomprehensibly vast time and niche variety in which the forces of natural selection and random mutation have bent operational.

I love the new definition of the scientific method.....tested and confirmed has been replaced with intuitive plausibility.......accepting that which cannot be proved has changed too......it used to be faith......now its scientifically proven........
 
I love the new definition of the scientific method.....tested and confirmed has been replaced with intuitive plausibility.......accepting that which cannot be proved has changed too......it used to be faith......now its scientifically proven........

Just Trying to address the concerns of a creationist who argued based on the claimed absurdity of variation. The objection was not strictly scientific but intuitive so I confronted it according to its terms.
 
Don't be too hard on Darwin, remember he had no DNA or Electron Microscope, in fact all he had was a pen and little book. The more we learn, the less we like what we find as we are clearly robots of a sort that only follow programming

Are you arguing that we lack "free will"?
 
The chronological ordering of the fossil record from "less evolved and diverse" to "more evolved and diverse" is good evidence for the support of macro evolution despite the lack of smooth transition from one form to another.
 
The chronological ordering of the fossil record from "less evolved and diverse" to "more evolved and diverse" is good evidence for the support of macro evolution despite the lack of smooth transition from one form to another.

It's actually good evidence for common descent. But common descent doesn't prove evolution; since the fundamental question is whether evolution [descent with modification] *explains* common descent.

For example, some ID theorists accept common descent but not evolution.
 
Just Trying to address the concerns of a creationist who argued based on the claimed absurdity of variation. The objection was not strictly scientific but intuitive so I confronted it according to its terms.

I have never argued with variation......I have only argued with your belief that man evolved from algae.....
 
I've heard that so many times I took pains to *slog* through Darwins book lol. And yes, it was a painful read.

I used to be less skeptical of it. In fact, I wasn't skeptical at all when I was younger. Then I want full blown YEC till I became skeptical of it.

Now my mind is open on the whole issue. Let the evidence lead where it may.

Darwin never suggested that insects evolved into any other sort of animal. I have never heard that claim outside of a creationist strawman.
 
Explain what HAS been suggested.....algae》》》》man....

That is a long haul and you still don't get the difference between metamorphosis and evolution. Show us that you understand that beetles did not turn into rhinos and demonstrate that you can answer why there is no crocoduck and maybe someone will think that it's worth the effort to explain it to a dumbass like you.

Better yet, do as Micawber suggested, go to a Museum (The Field Museum is awesome!) or read some books. The only thing you are likely to get here is a good synopsis which you won't understand.
 
Back
Top