PROOF against evolution

yxifix, A logical error in your argument is that you don't know that the genetic code wasn't naturally formed. Ergo, your premise is insufficient to conclude intelligence was required to form the genetic code.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-11-2004 04:55 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Mark, you too!

Only because you failed to understand it. Wait a minute, we're talking about two different things, though.Percy's example is only an example of how new genetic information can be created from old, via natural random processes.You're losing sight of the scope of our arguments, and trying to mash them together in ways that don't make sense. Plus, it's clear that your written English is not great, so it's often hard to understand what you mean at all. Strange? It's unintelligible. Can you try to write clearer, please? Are you calling me a liar? Exactly which of my statements was a falsehood?

..oh, I feel like I'm speaking with wall...You know what? Just give me an explanation of how information itself evolved by accident ...that would be surely interesting story to read.NO ONE OF YOU HAVE ANSWERED one logical explanation to clearly stated question. I'm asking how was A created and all of you are just talking about B C D E ....oh... nevermind.
If you don't know to explain it at least theoretically, the theory of evolution is NONSENSE... that's sure.

oh oh...Crashfrog, I'm not going to discuss with you things that are not important for me anymore...because you are master of demagogy.Just give me explanation how the information created itself by accident (without using another information)

Natural selection and random mutation.

Closer. Natural selection and random mutation of what?Don't forget you are not allowed to use information to create information.Than you can also answer, why it is not natural to "destroy everything" and why it is natural to "select something"

This is where you are others are talking past each other.As has been noted we don't have a complete explanation of how the intial genomic information happened. End of Story. That is not a concern of evolution.Meanwhile once there is information to use then RM and NS can add to it. It you wish to disprove that you will be on topic. If not find something in another topic in this forum.

CliffI believe that it has been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.Here is how Evolution works.There are random chance mutations. Most are neutral. Then some are harmful. A few are actually beneficial. But all are simply random, chance.All critters pass through a filter. It's called living long enough to reproduce. No plan, no information, just living long enough to reproduce. The poor critters that have the harmful mutations don't live long enough to reproduce. Those mutations don't get passed on. The neutral and beneficial critters live long enough to pass those mutations on to the next generation.It is really that simple.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

yxifix is NOT talking about evolution. He is talking about abiogenisis. I think that you are missing that point.I think yxifix thinks he's talking about evolution too but he's not.You explanation presumes a replicating population that can "pick up" a random mutation. yxifix is asking where that came from.

OK, that's the answer - you don't have explanation.... but the truth is, if there is not even theoretical explanation of this, then logically there can't be even running research about it to find out... and logically, it is used in "Theory of evolution" as something like "it was and it will be" ....But that's against the Theory of evolution itself.... THAT'S THE TRUTH, you don't want to here, do you? Bye.

What do you mean, of what?Selection happens to organisms. Mutation happens to genes.You're talking about genetic information, right?

You can call it whatever you like as I said... but it is and it will be unseparable part of evolution - if you like it this way. And you must find out the answer before teaching this theory.... you can't say just "it was" in this theory.

Well, you could apply an example but you are right, no need really. So just leave the word genetic, so it will be clear. Just information.So....you can also answer, why it is not natural to "destroy everything" and why it is natural to "select something" (you haven't answered yet although I asked)

What information? I don't understand the question.