If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

[PostmodernProphet]

gosh that was close. I thought I might have to answer his questions.

you do.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's just such an ignorant argument in regards to common descent. LOL LOL LOL

you always did ignore the implications of your beliefs.....if it's wrong, which do you believe did NOT evolve from some form of algae, the insect, the rhino or man?......perhaps the statement isn't as ignorant as you thought, eh?......

 

[Timshel]

The latter part isn't really true.

There is no less evolved to more evolved progression, though homind evolution seems to be an exception---if intelligence is taken into account. In fact, I'm not even sure 'more evolved' is a scientific term---it seems more a subjective judgement.

Less complex to more complex is probably a better way to phrase it.

But what does the record show? Complexity from top to bottom and from beginning to end. Organisms in the Cambrian were as complex---or at least very nearly as complex, as they are today. Today, a virus is less complex than a bacterium, but today doesn't count. And no one suggests that viruses evolved into bacteria.

I don't see what would be wrong in saying "more evolved" when comparing against primitive forms or those found in the past. But to say it in regards to modern species is sort of stupid. You are not more evolved than any ape or most other currently living things. You just evolved in a different way.

*More complex might work in comparison to bacteria but not against most other living things. Again we are just differently complex.

 

[Darth Omar]

I don't see what would be wrong in saying "more evolved" when comparing against primitive forms or those found in the past. But to say it in regards to modern species is sort of stupid. You are not more evolved than any ape or most other currently living things. You just evolved in a different way.

It's not wrong to say---more like meaningless.

A trout isn't 'more evolved' than a salamander---though it's tempting to say it; actually, both are well adapted to their respective environments.

If you 'see' an evolutionary progression you're projecting it onto the evidence.

 

[Timshel]

It's not wrong to say---more like meaningless.

A trout isn't 'more evolved' than a salamander---though it's tempting to say it; actually, both are well adapted to their respective environments.

If you 'see' an evolutionary progression you're projecting it onto the evidence.

It's not meaningless. When people like TapsOut and others use terms like "more evolved", "sub human", "lesser" and such it seems to be intended to support the need to feel superior which is common for those conditioned to narcissism by religion. TapsOut thinks his "superiority" allows him to do whatever he wants to "lesser" species. Of course, that's an artifact of his religion as well.

 

[Darth Omar]

It's not meaningless. When people like TapsOut and others use terms like "more evolved", "sub human", "lesser" and such it seems to be intended to support the need to feel superior which is common for those conditioned to narcissism by religion. TapsOut thinks his "superiority" allows him to do whatever he wants to "lesser" species. Of course, that's an artifact of his religion as well.

I don't know which religion you're talking about but there is nothing intrinsic to Christianity that supports supremacy. Just the opposite, in fact.

But even after I pointed out the error, you cling to the idea that evolution suggests some species are 'more evolved' than others. Again, with the possible exception of intelligence in different hominid species, 'more evolved' is a subjective call.

But you're hardly the first to use the phrase 'more evolved'.

Because the idea flows as a logical consequence from the theory: it kind of wants to be there, even though 'more evolved' translates into 'better adapted' in purely scientific terms.

I wouldn't go as far as to say racism is inherent to evolution. But it's makes a much better platform for it than Christianity does.

All one needs to do is apply the term 'more evolved' to different groups of humans.

 

[Timshel]

I don't know which religion you're talking about but there is nothing intrinsic to Christianity that supports supremacy. Just the opposite, in fact.

But even after I pointed out the error, you cling to the idea that evolution suggests some species are 'more evolved' than others. Again, with the possible exception of intelligence in different hominid species, 'more evolved' is a subjective call.

But you're hardly the first to use the phrase 'more evolved'.

Because the idea flows as a logical consequence from the theory: it kind of wants to be there, even though 'more evolved' translates into 'better adapted' in purely scientific terms.

I wouldn't go as far as to say racism is inherent to evolution. But it's makes a much better platform for it than Christianity does.

All one needs to do is apply the term 'more evolved' to different groups of humans.

Have you read the Old Testament? It's all about the chosen people. The NT does democratize "who is chosen" but it is still all based on the idea that you are a special being among all of life and God loves you.

No, dumbfuck, I am not suggesting that any current species is "more evolved." How the fuck do you idiots get this so twisted? I have been telling you fuckers that your language of "more evolved, lesser, higher, sub ___ etc." betrayed a misunderstanding of evolution.

I said that in comparison to past forms current forms might be called more evolved. They have had more time to evolve. The word is not applicable to comparisons between current form and neither is "complex."

You don't understand anything about the theory of evolution witnessed by your ignorant claim that Darwin suggests that rhinos evolved from beetles.

Racism comes primarily from creationists who insist on their superiority to others and other species or the remnants of that instruction.