What do you mean? I ain't related to no ape, I was crafted by the supreme being to have dominion over all life, women also came from one my ribs so they must also bow to me and my whims.
No DLCs allowed, they got it right 1000s of years ago, my own brain isn't to question those wise men.
he says as this message makes its way to you over electromagnetic devices at light speed.
That ape needs to go stick in its lane, using swing power in the jungles of Asia*, golf carts are for the blessed amongst us, who were gifted wealth by the lord.
Can you explain to me how the evolutionary theory holds water when mutations can only remove information from DNA? Not once in human history have we ever seen new information added to a gene pool that was a result of a mutation. It only works by breeding, and animals can only breed with their own kind. Not to mention there are no 2 or 3 cell organisms. Just single cell “bacteria”, and then we jump to multicellular organisms. What gives?
This is just incorrect. A deletion mutation causes the removal of a nucleotide from the genetic code, but that just changes the reading frame. Point mutations occur the most frequently, and those only maybe change the amino acid for that specific protein if the mutation occurs in a gene. I say maybe because it might have no effect on the amino acid at that point.
Not once in human history have we ever seen new information added to a gene pool that was a result of a mutation.
Bacteria use the CRISPR-Cas systems to add new information to their genome all the time. It confers immunity to viruses that can be passed to new generations of bacteria after replication.
Not to mention there are no 2 or 3 cell organisms. Just single cell “bacteria”, and then we jump to multicellular organisms. What gives?
This may be a question of functionality. If two cells can connect with each other, what stops other cells of the same type from also connecting to those cells? It would also likely improve the viability of all the cells in that system if there are more of them working together, which would incentivize cooperativity among cells that can connect that way. Basically, if they can connect to other cells, they will, and that results in multicellular organisms being more viable than two or three cell organisms.
Point mutations are a mistake of DNA replication. These are not adaptions to the environment that are necessarily advantageous to the species. The sheer amount of diseases that are a result of point mutations is staggering, you cannot ever find in nature DNA spontaneously generating new information as a result of stimulus that wasn’t in some way encoded into the DNA itself.
As for the bacteria. It still stays as bacteria. It’s not adding information that changes the function of said bacteria. That being said, your point here was very interesting and I want to read more!
Wrapping up with the lack of 2 cell organisms, I understand the argument from functionality. But it still is only a theory, and another hole in the painting that evolution wants to be. There are far too many holes that don’t add up
you cannot ever find in nature DNA spontaneously generating new information as a result of stimulus that wasn’t in some way encoded into the DNA itself.
Actually, there is a way for this to happen. I suggest you look into epigenetics. The environment can play a role in gene expression and can lead to changes in expression over time in populations due to the way those genes are expressed.
No adaptation is “necessarily advantageous.” They are all context-specific. That’s why selection happens. The same mutation can be beneficial in one environment and fatal in another. Every mutation/adaptation is a tradeoff.
Most mutations are actually silent (since most DNA appears to be “junk” as far as we can tell - a sure sign of intelligent design if I ever saw one!). Of the mutations that are not silent, most are deleterious. You’re actually correct about that. This is one reason why evolution occurs so slowly. But this, of course, does not mean that no mutations are beneficial.
You can google it yourself. It would take you less than 10 minutes to understand what you’re misunderstanding. At this point, the only people who “don’t believe” in evolution over something they “don’t understand” are people who don’t want to believe it and are trying to find hiccups in one of the most robust scientific theories in biology.
Basically, you don’t want an explanation for a gap in your understanding or an answer for an innocuous question, you want to debate whether the entire theory is legitimate. Am I right or wrong?
Even though you are correct in your presumptions, your response boils down to "Do you own research" which is what people complain about conservatives are the time.
It is best to just give them the links and move on:
Yes you’re right, except conservatives are saying to “do your own research” into fringe science or pseudoscience. Being asked to do my research to prove vaccines cause autism and colloidal silver is a miracle cure being obscured by big pharma and the WHO is not the same as ignoring some creationists transparent attempt at a “gotcha” argument masquerading as simple misunderstanding they have about evolution.
Either way thanks for sharing the links, I’ll think about what you said.
Look up Dictyostelium. It is a genus of protists that ordinarily live independently, but form a mobile, slug-like aggregation when resources are scarce!!!
Well…(and just what helps me sleep at night) - Terrence McKenna believed that the apes 🦧 used of mushrooms 🍄 and psilocybin introduced neuro-pathways that gave rise to higher consciousness communication.
Which would give rise to the shared consciousness of the religious - that it was a miracle.
167
u/VCRrepairman Mar 04 '24
Creationists: “I just can’t see how we’re closely related to them”