The Council of Nicea

@kellyjay said
Except the evolutionary story is a story that can not display any mechanisms to share how it is done, simply repeating the theory does not prove it. Natural processes degrade in time the greater the entropy the more it can degrade. To harness energy to do work requires machines, even in the biological world unless there is something to harness energy to put it into a useful ...[text shortened]... h energy creates high entropy!

The theory if true looks more designed than mindlessnessly driven.

Do you understand how natural selection works?

@divegeester said
Do you understand how natural selection works?

Dive, explain origin of life.
Science cannot, and it makes them look a bit stupid, frankly.
They want to skip over that.

@chaney3 said
Explain where DNA originated from.
You cannot.
At least the Bible makes an effort to explain it.
Science has nothing.
(It's amazing to me the arrogance of people who cannot explain origin, yet try to sound intelligent, but you sound dumb, sorry)

FAIL

I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

@kellyjay said
Except the evolutionary story is a story that can not display any mechanisms to share how it is done, simply repeating the theory does not prove it. Natural processes degrade in time the greater the entropy the more it can degrade. To harness energy to do work requires machines, even in the biological world unless there is something to harness energy to put it into a useful ...[text shortened]... h energy creates high entropy!

The theory if true looks more designed than mindlessnessly driven.

I'm not trying to prove it. I'm just showing that the theory offers far more details than Creation / ID.

And I just stated the mechanism by which evolution works. If you missed, try re-reading my post.

@bigdogg said
FAIL

I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

Lol. Okay.
You have nothing, that's why.

@chaney3 said
Explain where DNA originated from.
You cannot.
At least the Bible makes an effort to explain it.

And what "effort" is that?

@bigdogg said
I'm not trying to prove it. I'm just showing that the theory offers far more details than Creation / ID.

And I just stated the mechanism by which evolution works. If you missed, try re-reading my post.

You restated the theory you didn’t explain the mechanisms. How a mutation occurs builds upon previous alternatives while not destroying existing specific functions was not addressed.

The verbiage natural selection can only occur after a change occurs. There is nothing that would calculate what would be an acceptable useful new mutation to build on other mutations, making a new body form, or give a new feature. The processes are informationally driven so a new set of instructions are required and a means to error check, your mechanism is what, wishful thinking!?

@kellyjay said
You restated the theory you didn’t explain the mechanisms. How a mutation occurs builds upon previous alternatives while not destroying existing specific functions was not addressed.

The verbiage natural selection can only occur after a change occurs. There is nothing that would calculate what would be an acceptable useful new mutation to build on other mutations, making ...[text shortened]... of instructions are required and a means to error check, your mechanism is what, wishful thinking!?

"How a mutation occurs builds upon previous alternatives while not destroying existing specific functions was not addressed."

First time you've asked for this. Very well.

One example is the Polar Bear. That was a mutation in the color of fur. Changing the color of fur does not destroy any functionality. However, it does provide camouflage for snowy environments, which helps with sneaking up on prey.

@bigdogg said
"How a mutation occurs builds upon previous alternatives while not destroying existing specific functions was not addressed."

First time you've asked for this. Very well.

One example is the Polar Bear. That was a mutation in the color of fur. Changing the color of fur does not destroy any functionality. However, it does provide camouflage for snowy environments, which helps with sneaking up on prey.

That doesn’t answer my question we are talking about genetic code, fur color will not with time change a body form, or produce a new organ or system and with these new features add error checking when there are issues.

@kellyjay said
That doesn’t answer my question we are talking about genetic code, fur color will not with time change a body form, or produce a new organ or system and with these new features add error checking when there are issues.

You keep adding new things to your questions.

Copying errors change the genetic code.

The genetic code determines every aspect of the life-form, including coloring, form, organs, etc.

Your statement that 'body form will not change with time' is obviously false. For example, offspring commonly have different forms than their parents, for example. Just because Michael Jordan was 6'6" tall doesn't mean his parents were the same height.

That change occurs within our own lifetimes.

@bigdogg said
You keep adding new things to your questions.

Copying errors change the genetic code.

The genetic code determines every aspect of the life-form, including coloring, form, organs, etc.

Your statement that 'body form will not change with time' is obviously false. For example, offspring commonly have different forms than their parents, for example. Just because M ...[text shortened]... tall doesn't mean his parents were the same height.

That change occurs within our own lifetimes.

I am not adding things but simply highlighting the necessity which small changes over times require. If you wish to keep your views on the topic as simplistic as possible, to avoid complications to keep your views in the realm of that which is possible so be it. Just repeating what the theory suggests as true without looking at it critically you may go on your merry way.

@kellyjay said
I am not adding things but simply highlighting the necessity which small changes over times require. If you wish to keep your views on the topic as simplistic as possible, to avoid complications to keep your views in the realm of that which is possible so be it. Just repeating what the theory suggests as true without looking at it critically you may go on your merry way.

Yes, you added details to questions while at the same time accusing me of not having answered them.

This is you, as usual, struggling to communicate your ideas in writing. Don't accuse me of acting simplistic to cover for your problem.

@chaney3 said
Evolution is an incomplete explanation by science if it cannot explain origin.
Science would like to try to explain life, but must admit it cannot.
Evolution is incomplete, and any real scientist should concede that point.

Evolution does not explain how the first life form got started and does not propose to do so either. What evolution explains is speciation, how variants occur over time.

How the first life form(s) appeared is explained by bio-chemistry. The first life form(s) did not have eyes and ears and legs. The common objection that organs lying about in a field could not, by random shuffling, assemble themselves into a wolf is a straw man argument. The first life forms were extremely primitive, microscopic, not even as complex as bacteria, not more than a few bunches of molecules. Organic molecules have been detected even in outer space, in the tails of comets. These can indeed come about by spontaneous recombination or shuffling of the hundred or so naturally occurring elements, just like drawing a royal flush in a random shuffle of playing cards. No intelligent design is required to produce the basic chemical precursors of simple life forms.

Once the basic chemistry for life exists, and we are still not talking about mammals with organs or even anything as complex as a bacterium, but just the ability to reproduce itself and to store energy at a MOLECULAR level, THEN and only then does evolution show, by a combination of various mechanisms, including but not limited to mutation and national selection, how these extremely primitive life forms vary over time by adaptive modifications.

The common objection that life cannot come from not-life (from 'just chemicals' ) is also a straw man argument. Life does not come from not-life in one single improbable leap. There are identifiable in-between stages, there are states of matter which are not yet life, but not altogether not-life either. There are 'things' and chemical processes which exhibit some but not all of the properties we attribute to life. Photosynthesis, for example, is a chemical process we tend to associate with plants; there are however, plants which do not photosynthesize, moreover, photosynthesis can occur without being attached to any living thing. It's just a chemical process, but it is also one of the essential chemical precursors to life. Viruses, for example, are not alive, but not wholly non-living either-- not like rocks, for example. Viruses lack the ability to reproduce by themselves, but they exhibit other life-like properties. There are other in-between stages; for brevity, I haven't listed them all here. So, in sum, life did not come from not-life. There were many in-between stages along the way, and these in-between stages are still with us in many forms, we can see and measure them and even use them in manufacturing medicines and vaccines (for example).

Now, take it to Science, Spanky and stop confusing separate branches of science you know little or nothing about. You wouldn't expect a zoologist to explain an electronic device would you?

@chaney3 said
Dive, explain origin of life.

God did it.

@kellyjay said
I am not adding things but simply highlighting the necessity which small changes over times require. If you wish to keep your views on the topic as simplistic as possible, to avoid complications to keep your views in the realm of that which is possible so be it. Just repeating what the theory suggests as true without looking at it critically you may go on your merry way.

Do you understand how natural selection works.