I don't believe in universal common descent, I think it's a complete farce.

Universal common descent could refer to either a belief in God, or in evolution.

Suffice it to say, if there was a God, we would have something in common with that God.

What you mean, I think, is that you don't believe in natural explanations of species diversity.

Well, from some biblical standpoints it of course makes perfect sense to discount evolution and related sciences.

For example, modern-day biologists would generally agree that reptiles would find it difficult to verbally suggest eating an apple.

Huh? Then how can you believe that there is common DNA but no common starting point unless you're totally clueless as to what DNA is and does?

FWIW, even though I'm a non-believer, I completely accept that there can be evolution AND God.

Setting aside my non-belief, what do you think was God's mechanism of creation, a magic wand?

If you're a believer, why is God the magician more acceptable than God the engineer?

Your statement is akin to saying that because certain animals have common characteristics (eyes, 4 legs, ears...) that they evolved from a common ancestor - that is ludicrous.

While we are on the subject of DNA. You do realize that DNA acts much like a computer operation system? And that Bill Gates said that DNA is much more
complicated than any software ever written?

Who wrote that software (DNA)? Magic? Random mutations? (cough cough)

The idea that DNA evolved from nothing is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. And, seemingly intelligent people actually preach it as dogma.

I hope there is a God and afterlife for the evolution deniers so they have do a mea culpa and say yeah i am an ape thanks for making me one, sorry for deriding your creation and trying obscure the truth.

Dont see ourselves in them....shakes head...

Analogies are meant to illustrate a subject. It is tiring to see them used as arguments.

This aside, your post here is so wrong that it is difficult to express into words how wrong it is. It is analogous to someone stating that vegetables show how bad daytime TV is.



So let's just correct you instead: Evolution doesn't explain how living organisms come about. It explains how they develop.

And seriously, when you make basic errors of this magnitude... but still stroll about acting arrogantly and calling the entire scientific paradigm within biology (and related fields) for the century "farcial", it is once again hard to put into writing how bad that is.

I mean, it is bad. We're on the level of 2+7=11 here. I am not joking or being sarcastic.

Why do you think a natural process equals "evolving from nothing"?

What do you think science is trying to do? It's using experimental inquiry to seek answers to what indeed is the complete process that led to the universe and life.

Why do we need some mythic overseer? Maybe process comes about spontaneously? Maybe it doesn't.

The evidence strongly suggests evolution. NOTHING suggests *poof* there it is other than a ragtag bunch of ancient texts that conflict both themselves and each other cobbled together by humans with ulterior motives.

Science is about pursuing evidence through logic and trial. religion is about blind faith. BTW "blind faith* is redundant.

Except that your blather is a complete straw-man, I mean, it is *bad*, on the level of 2+7=11 here. I am not joking or being sarcastic.

How did the "operating system" called DNA "develop?" Randomness? ROFL.

Actually, religion is not about "blind faith." Care to try again?

What trial are you going to perform to reproduce an evolutionary process
that supposedly took millions of years? Hmmm?

No thanks. Can't argue with stupid.(as I'm sure you also think about me)

You go to your church, I'll go to my bar.

Natural processes wrote the software:

When a living being reproduces there is a small chance that there will be an error in the reproduction of particular genes in its DNA code. With enough living beings reproducing, the chance of such errors occurring, increases. Some of these errors lead to some sort of important diversity (e.g., sharper nails, thicker skin, or smarter brain). Some of these errors thus, may provide that particular offspring with an advantage over others of that species.

This is where the environment comes into play. For this let's use the example of birds.

Let's say that the environment, or island, on which this bird species lives, does not have shelled nuts anymore (as a source of energy/food). It use to have lots of shelled nuts, but now, most of the species of nuts went extinct on the island. However, the island has lots and lots of insects (as a source of energy/food for birds).

In this case, we would observe that prior to the extinction of shelled nuts on the island, the bird species that thrived were ones with larger/stronger beaks (for breaking shells, and eating nuts). After the extinction of shelled nuts however, the bird that has a smaller beak that's evolved more precisely for hunting insects will now be the new thriving species.

To wrap this up, imagine how such a small-beak bird would come about: by an error in the reproduction of the DNA of a large-beak bird - as described earlier. The small-beak bird, more adept at hunting insects is then more likely to reproduce and spread its genes throughout the island, while the large-beak bird is likely to go extinct, or find another source of energy/food.

Natural processes as such, write the 'software' on their own.

ROFL. I'm utterly astounded that people actually believe that hogwash.

So, you equate variation within a species to have the ability to create
an operating system more complicated than Microsoft Windows or Linux?

You're saying that the Galapagos Finch mutation is analogous to how
DNA evolved?

Please tell me you are joking?

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.

Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves.

Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection, which was redefined as being included in natural selection in the 1930s when biologists considered it not to be very important,[2] and fecundity selection, for example.

Please have a read before jumping to bombastic simplifications.

I merely meant to provide you with an example of some of the processes involved.

No, you are spitting out blather that you know little about. The fact that you'd make an analogy between variation in a species to how DNA came to exist shows that you've swallowed the Darwin Dogma without thinking critically.

Let me ask you this, how do you get DNA without a cell membrane, and
how would you get a cell membrane without DNA?

You are (fairly aggressively) confusing science with something that "has all the answers". If we had all the answers, there wouldn't be science. To strut around stating "well, tell me this then!" then as some objection to science is a lot like arguing that darkness proves flashlights are useless.

Still, none of this changes that after... what... 5-6 years on this forum you are still believing (or at least claiming) that evolution is a theory of how life came to be.

I mean, that you haven't grasped or refuse to grasp this most basic of concepts; The actual meaning of the scientific paradigm you spend hundreds - if not thousands - of hours quarreling, bickering and arguing about... I think that shows the true nature of religiously fueled objections to evolution.

It isn't really a discussion. It's merely you and those who think like you clinging on for dear life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Lipids can spontaneously form cell like structures in solution. This is not a big issue.

Time and chance. A key point with DNA is that it is self replicating, so a suitable DNA molecule need only be created by chance once. (Still being formed in a lipid bubble would probably help).

It can be difficult to appreciate the difference in scale between what can happen in a couple of hours in a lab and millions or billions of yeas across a planet.

I wasn't drawing an analogy between species variation and the evolution of DNA. You were.

The evolution of DNA stems from RNA. Piers answers your questions more precisely here, but if you're interested I'd suggest you read about RNA and its relation to DNA.
This is not relevant to what I was talking about. The evolution of DNA comes from completely separate natural processes: to that of natural selection and sexual selection. I'd elaborate, but you'd likely just return with - what a bunch of blather! - so I don't feel too motivated to continue engaging with you. I hope you can understand that.

The problem with rhetoric like this is that "simple" and "complicated" aren't clear terms at all.

Both DNA and Linux are beautifully simple in one light, and immensely complex in another.

A Lego block is incredibly simple. Piecing Lego blocks together is simple.



Is Lego simple or complicated?

All of this message, and the system you're using to display it, is routed in a pattern of 0's and 1's. Your rhetoric is akin to saying "There's no way I can watch high def porn just from a string of two alternating numbers.".

Because I am already aware of the 98% figure (the actual % varies depending on what the comparison involves, and of course the most interesting point being made is that humans have more in common with chimpanzees than other species, as evolution theory predicted).

Why not provide a source, or at least a basic explanation, for why this is "a complete lie"?



You have common characteristics with your parents that others do not have. You and your parents have common characteristics with their parents that others do not have. You, your parents and your grandparents have common characteristics with their parents that others do not have.

I've heard the "you see common ancestry, I see common designer" meme before. It's not remotely convincing to imagine an omnipotent designer that creates the diversity of life on Earth exactly the same way that common decent would happen. There is not a single thing that would prevent an omnipotent designer from creating an arachnid that has 10 legs, while it is impossible under our understanding of common decent. The so-called tree of life is remarkable in that every organism we find fits in place, and has all the characteristics predicted by evolution theory.

Analogies to software can be made of DNA. Its behaviour is indeed remarkable. Asking 'who' commits the fallacy of begging the question. There is a lot of research available on how DNA could have developed (e.g. from RNA).


It boggles the mind when creationists condescendingly suggest that the secular view is "Poof!", DNA appeared by magic out of nowhere, when this is EXACTLY the Biblical account for all of creation. Please cite a single credible scientific source that puts forward a hypothesis that "DNA evolved from nothing".


In addition to strawmanning evolutionary theory and conflating abiogenesis with evolution, you keep committing the fallacy of incredulity. I don't really believe you are the dummy that your posts would otherwise indicate. Not that this makes your position any better. Why is it that creationists so often have to misrepresent the opposing position? If they had such a strong position, it would be unnecessary.

Ironically I think you're saner and less faith-based about evolution than the people replying. Enjoying your schtick a lot, man.

That's not to say you're right, just that your thinking is more cogent than anyone who's replied to this.

You're hoping to elicit a response with this I presume. Well done, you have.

If you put little faith in evidence-based explanations that's fine. Just try not to get too butthurt when you see that not many will put much effort in considering your views seriously.
It's hardly convincing, based on people's responses here, so I'm not sure how loosely you're using the word 'cogent'.

You certainly put a lot of stock in someone who defaults to "LOL" and repeating himself as an argument.

Actually its a common mistake to think its all about building phylogenetic trees from macroscopic traits like eyes, legs ears etc... Historically that might have been true, but has been mostly depreciated in the last couple of decades and is now only used as a sanity check.

The real evidence is in the genomes. Basically the more genetic variations between two genomes, the greater the phylogenetic distance, and conversely.

Still I guess this is where 'Darwinism falls down, as genome analysis was not available in his time. So you might have a good point in the limited scope of the OP's strawman.

Ones lack of imagination, does not make the unimaginable false.

No they have manners. If you look closer.