Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

"Increase the information in the genome"? What does that even mean?

Is bacteria evolving resistant to medicine concidered as an increase in information? If not, why not?

Also, what is the definition of a kind? Creationists tend to bring it up when discussing the flood in the bible.

Of course, the catch is that, if kind means distinct species, the ark becomes too small, I think. And if kind simply means "general type of animal", then obviously some change has to have occurred post-ark, such as evolution.

And if kind simply means "general type of animal", then obviously some change has to have occurred post-ark, such as evolution. I think that, in order for "kind" to make any logical sense, it needs to be just distinct enough such that any changes between kinds and their species can be attributed to microevolution.

Clearly, part of the Ark's design was that at both ends of the Ark, there was a dimensional warp gate.

It's like the bag of holding from D&D. OH SNAP, NOAH WAS A D&D NERD.

Rather than having billions of animals evolving over billions of years, you have billions of animals evolving over thousands of years.

A lot of animals have different numbers of chromosomes. An often raised objection to evolution is that this means at some point an organism would have been born with a different number of chromosomes from the rest of the population but it wouldn’t have had anything it could mate with that had the same number of chromosomes so the mutation wouldn’t have been preserved. This objection is based on the false idea that animals with different numbers of chromosomes are incapable of interbreeding.

If this was true the existence of modern domesticated horses would be something of a genetic miracle. Domestic horse populations have 64 chromosomes… wild horse populations have 66.

In reality chromosome fissions and fusions are hardly an unknown phenomenon.

One such fusion clearly occurred after the hominids branched off from the rest of the primates. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, all the rest of the primates have 24. Evolutionary theory and the nested hierarchy then tells us this means there was a fusion event which reduced the number of chromosomes in humans to 23 after their ancestors split off from the wider population. If this prediction is true, we should be able to see clear evidence of it in a chromosomal analysis.

Lo and behold:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

There is overwhelming evidence that human chromosome 2 is the product of the fusion of two chromosomes which just happen to look basically identical to two chromosomes found in chimpamzees… as seen in the image included in the above link.

Note that this is not just evidence that human and chimp genetic sequences kind of look the same. The telomere and centromere sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2 are clear indication that that chromosome is the product of the combination of two different pre-existing independent chromosomes. If humans had been independently created in their modern form rather than having evolved into it from a common ancestor with other animals there is no reason to expect find something like this in the human genome… but there it is.

We were created to evolve.

Because there is no evidence.

As they say, Ju Ju, great minds think alike.

Yes, this is what I'm looking for. Anyways, this is why I love Ockham's Razor - shave off all the unsubstantiated material in an argument. I don't particularly like the "God did it and then let things evolved" argument because the fact that "God did it" and the fact that he "let things happen" are unsubstantiated.

Actually, to the contrary, the burden of proof is always upon whomever makes the extraordinary claim, in this case being you, I believe.

To say life spontaneously sprang forth from a puddle of random goo is no less extraordinary than that some mysterious, all-powerful being snapped their fingers and made it all appear.

Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.

Alright, let's assume you're right. It has been shown that chemicals that were supposedly on the early Earth could have formed organic materials. Then, amazingly, these molecules decided to bunch together and form useless membranes and other useless pieces, which then became the vital parts of simple living organisms (according to the current model for the theory of evolution). I say that's impossible, but let's assume it happened.

We all know the story, these things supposedly grew and changed over billions of years and became everything there is on Earth now. That supposedly happened through evolution by natural selection. Now, I don't have a problem with natural selection: the environment can change, to favor organisms with certain characteristics, and the rest of the population dies. But the theory of evolution relies not on on natural selection, but on this surviving population then becoming more diverse so it can happen again.

So the population then has to have mutations. Mutations that actually benefit the organism in terms of it's survival. Riiiiiight. So an organism is somehow mutated, and instead of causing cancer or a negative genetic change as usual, the mutagen finds the perfect spot in the DNA sequence to alter a gene to create a new version of that gene. Then the changed organism has offspring that are also altered in a good way. Then, like clockwork, another climate change gets rid of the old type of the species.

That sounds a little too intricate and complex too happen randomly. Even over billions of years. Unless there was some intelligent designer controlling each part. Oops! That's not scientifically possible! So if life did somehow randomly form, there is a 99.99% chance that we would stay as small prokaryotic organisms swimming around in a puddle. Isn't that annoying!