Nostr Web Client

Reminder that every advancement in bio chemistry since the discovery of DNA, the rise of information theory, and modern cosmological discoveries about the age of the planet have all together led to the unavoidable conclusion that macro evolution is not possible. There is no common ancestor. Each creature's code is too unique. The reproductive process cannot benefit from mutation. This is unpopular simply because of the questions it leads to. But it is the result of discovery and based in evidence.

Real scientists asks who created life, not what.

https://youtu.be/b6a0dC4RsVY?si=3xW3IweiOoTXBg3d

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Duncan Cary Palmer 1y ago

Brilliantly stated.

Simply beyond the possibility of being believed.

As I've personally observed the remarkable design strategies in so many living creatures, my tendency has been to ridicule those who persist in clinging to the absurd notion that such spectacular engineering could possibly have occurred by chance, no matter how many eons you might claim.

UCantDoThatDotNet 1y ago

Matt 1y ago

No, they don't. Anyone with a 90 IQ would realize that an even bigger and more complex issue is introduced when god is invoked; Where did God come from?

And the argument for god typically rests on the claim that nothing can exist without a creator, except the creator, of course (trust me, bro).

Not having an answer for something doesn't automatically mean god. In fact, the concept of god has been constantly shrinking as we explain things that were once explained only by gods.

jonb 1y ago

Yes; also, this talk was great. I remember this guy from a lot of the intelligent design docs he did when he was younger.

Darin 1y ago

YouTube hasn’t banned this yet?

Niel Liesmons 1y ago

Macro evolution is very much possible.

But DNA and Darwinian evolution theory could not ever hope to explain that.

Morphic Resonance, however, can.

It's the only coherent and actually testable hypothesis I know of.

I was starting to believe in a God for the reasons you describe, until I read that book.

nostr:note1c7utvdgq309f9hm73xk05tzkqtdr63syf74ngh6d29pnunz2d27qsfjucz

nostr:note1d9jcgyvegewz6e9p7ah0rqx38ctgqpemfexprknpvxgy62cywpnqr59hjr

Scott 1y ago

Based on what you know about God and what you know about evolution do you think the two could both be true at the same time?

arkinox 1y ago

Certainly. If one believes in God then one believes He can do anything. If science says evolution was how creatures came to be, then that is how God designed it. However, science does not say this.

Many religious people including myself have been misled to believe that the default preferred theology of atheists is scientifically correct. It is not.

Scott 1y ago

Ok cool.

I read origin of species. There’s a really interesting example in the book where Darwin struggles with the existence of sterile ants that have a really unique body shape. The fact that they were sterile meant that their special characteristics had to be completely carried by the regular ants without being expressed. Darwin tried to resolve this by applying his theory of evolution at the level of the ant colony in addition to the level of the individual organism.

I bring this up to say that I think all of life sharing a common lineage might be explainable with understanding that goes beyond evolution.

One possibility is that “mutations” are not random but instead something that biological life naturally exerts influence over. This would dramatically change the math.

arkinox 1y ago

🤙🤙🤙 You should read https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483

The presupposition of a common ancestor leads to wild theories that just don't find any footing. With the common ancestor theory disproven using modern discoveries, why does it need new wild theories to resurrect it? Darwin's Origin was published almost 100 years before we discovered DNA. The clinging to his theories is as archaic as some religions at this point, except this particular religion can be falsified.

Of course that does not change the popular opinion of darwinism. They just keep trying to make it work somehow because they are afraid of explaining where the genetic and epigenetic information originated if not by natural processes.

But that is no longer science if a theory can't be questioned or disproven.

Cheers sir

Scott 1y ago

I’ll consider reading this! I will say, I don’t feel that you really responded to my ideas though.

arkinox 1y ago

Sorry, how do you think life might harness mutation? I don't see a way for that to happen. Many environmentally induced traits are actually preprogrammed into DNA, not evolved. But maybe you have some ideas on it?

Scott 1y ago

Well, Darwin believed that adaptation had “inertia” such that organisms would “accelerate” toward a niche and then sort of settle into it. So that is one case in which mutation rate may not be constant.

I agree with you that Darwinian theory is not sufficient by the way.

Weatherall 1y ago

he does look like he came from a monkey though, no?

Scott 1y ago

What that beard do.