Tonight i see on CNN that definitely the chicken came before the egg! So British scientists have worked out....who cares anyway....then it started me wondering,where did the chicken come from ? I mean it was a tremendous leap from the amaeba !
Well, the thing is, eggs have always experienced difficutly in propogating (something to do with airtight shells), so they were always kind of dependant on a chicken's derriere in the first place. Don't really understand what all the scientific exercise to prove this well known logical observation was all about
You realize that evolution is impossible right? I know they teach it in school like it happens but when we use scientific modeling and mathematics we can determine that it is simply impossible for a creature to evolve. We did a case study on it in uni
Here read it for your self. The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution. Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur. The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
Bboy,if that's what your experiments showed at uni I must believe you and not the countless scientists all over the world who accept evolution as scientific fact.Instead of trying to impress a forum of traders with your scientific gobbledegook why don't you publish your findings in a reputable scientific journal so that your findings can be scrutinised by real boffs?I fear that it is only your mind that is going downhill into disorganisation and chaos.Where do you stand on the easter bunny?
Russ....not very nice of you to show impatience and cut the man down.Did you read his view carefully or is it beyond you to comprehend. A very logical piece that is also telling us that life of all sorts and types is created by the Lord.Nothing can exist without his doing. I also dont believe in this evolution bullsh.t.
Bboy, it's not only mutation that's the driving force of evolution there's natural selection as well. Mutation is only part of evolution. As a plant breeder,when selecting for suitable traits, I'm used to ratios of 1 in a 1000 to 1:10 000. Mutation breeding experiments yield results of 1:1000 000 or worse. In breeding and applicable to evolution, there's the equation P = G + E + GE. Without going into details, this equation takes into account the Genotype(G) by Environment(E) (note natural/artificial selection) interaction yielding the final outcome Phenotype(P). In terms of evolution, don't go looking for a plan to turn a mouse into an elephant. It's all about chance and probabilities and doesn't care. Much like the market!
AI Russ. . . You know there are many theories on creation right? Why don't you google what some scientists believed about spontaneous creation? And Not all scientists believe in evolution, your very wrong to assume this, in fact there are many scientists that don't believe in evolution at all. And I don't need to publish the experiments we did at uni because they are already the well known and recognized problems with the evolution theory.
Dear Dear Russ, do not fall into the trap that by assuming micro-evolution (change / adaption within a species) is proof of macro-evolution. There are countless scientists across the globe that have indeed published many revered papers on evolution & the lack of proof to its existence. Many of the cornerstones of Evolutionary proof are flawed - none more so than the inaccuracy of Carbon dating. Using rocks to age date fossils is one thing but then using fossil age-dates to date the very rocks that held the fossils is a case in point. Carbon dating has established that a woolly mammoth's leg was 25million years older than the skin attached to that leg - thereby proving that it is possible to live for that period of time without skin. Again - trees have been found standing upright & passing through layers of rock & coal (one tree crossing a few million years of sedimentary layers) etc etc. There is plenty of contradictory evidence as there is substantive evidence to sow a seed of doubt in my mind. So I go with what I believe. My point is that it matters not whether you can prove evolution exists or not. ANY SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES YOU TO BELIEVE WHAT CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY PROVEN (LEAP OF FAITH) is a Religion. Science requires you to believe in something they cannot prove, as does Christianity. So please lets just agree that both are Religions & at that agree to disagree.
I know it's futile to argue because those who have preconceived notions that have been brainwashed into them from an early age will only look for "proofs" that support their ideas.There is none so blind as those who will not see.Just read widely and don't get hung up on minutiae.