Bear Ribs
Well-known member
People argue DNA because that at least gives Evolution a chance. You literally cannot create the amino acids required for the "reading system" under any theoretical possible atmosphere.It doesn't need to. As many others have already stated, everything about Origins is extraneous to the actual Theory of Evolution. People like fiddling with it because it's interesting but A. it doesn't need to, B. what has happened has odds of 1.
And, of course, there's the lovely question of, why do people keep assuming DNA happened in one brilliant moment. Even your Space Virii friend runs into this fundamental flaw. Fossils are not all from one instant. RNA exists. There are forms of DNA that ARE NOT Chromosomal. Chromosomes are not mandatory.
Experiments that got E. Coli to actually eat a new nutrient looked like there was no change for ages and then suddenly it could eat. But it's not "then suddenly it could eat" it was "there were a bunch of independently do nothing changes that then only needed one more change to bring them together into a nutrient channel".
Plenty of people argue that DNA is impossible because improbability or energy. None of them consider the question, "why would DNA come first?" DNA does fuck all on it's own. It must first be READ. The first step is not creating the record, it's creating literacy. And that's a very interesting question, because the literacy of an individual is dependent on the writing, but literacy itself just needs A writing system. DNA is a specific writing system, but the question is not "what are the odds of DNA" but "what are the odds of a molecular writing system?"
Why do people fixate on DNA then? Well, frankly, for the same reason you are. They don't WANT Evolution to be true so they go for something that FEELS like a strong argument.
Also, you are still not responding to my point. So frankly, until you have a response, I'm going to stop engaging with your "but IMPROBABILITY" from here.
Running away from "but Evolution doesn't explain where life came from" is a pedantic trick, much like "We can't debate abortion until we have a mathematically perfect definition of a human" or "I'm not a biologist so I can't define a woman." It boils down to not being able to actually argue the facts, so run away and argue something adjacent using Motte and Bailey tactics.
I would further point out you're peddling some terrible science here. F'rex you've spoken of "Giant Spiracles" proving evolution because the atmosphere was different in the Carbonaceous. That's a bit of circular logic posited only be evolutionists, the spiracles must have been in a higher-oxygen atmosphere, hence evolution is true! But we have no idea what kind of mechanical or chemical tricks may have been in the non-fossilized tissues to work in a standard atmosphere.
However, as already posted in this thread, we do know what the atmosphere was like, and a mere 500 million years after its formation, it had an atmosphere much like our modern one.
Geologists have a saying - rocks remember. -Neil Armstrong
The rocks remember. We have numerous oxides that are older than life, yet could only have formed in our own atmosphere. Evolutionists have been reduced to either ignoring this fact, or postulating that life came from space because there's no possible way it could have originated by chance on earth with what we now know about earth's atmosphere.
The fossil record also rather handily disproves evolution. The biggest is the one Darwin himself acknowledged, the Cambrian Explosion.
“As Darwin noted in the Origin of Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms - either living or in the fossil record - that show convincingly how modern arthropods evolved from worm-like ancestors. Consequently there has been a wealth of speculation and contention about relationships between the arthropod lineages.” -Osorio, D, J. P. Bacon, and P. Whittington. 1997. The evolution of arthropod nervous system. American Scientist 95: 244.
We see massive numbers of new species suddenly appear simultaneously, fully formed and active, without the slightest trace of any evolutionary development and no transitional forms. Complex structures like eyes and arthropod exoskeletons appear suddenly whole cloth. This is impossible under evolution but exactly what we'd expect if a Creator is dropping new species into his Minecraft server. We further keep finding species in the wrong places. Evolutionists are prone to ignoring these but the rocks remember.
Complex skeletons evolved earlier than realized, fossils suggest
The first animals to have complex skeletons existed about 550 million years ago, fossils of a tiny marine creature unearthed in Namibia suggest.
phys.org
Complex skeletons well before the Cambrian explosion happened. How? Those didn't evolve until hundreds of millions of years later. What about the Permian? No mammals then, the Carboniferous hadn't even happened yet! We have modern bear tracks going through a Permian layer according to the Smithsonian.
Even though flowers and pollinators evolved in the Cretaceous era, they found flowers in the Jurassic era long before that. This is fairly troubling, because like every other life form, flowers suddenly appear in the Fossil record with absolutely no transitional forms, further there's no real theory on how flowers are even possible to evolve because they're meaningless without pollinators but pollinators can't have evolved without flowers to feed them.
Jurassic flower fossils shake up theories of plant evolution
Fossil flowers found in China suggest the first flowers emerged almost 50 million years before scientists previously thought.
elifesciences.org
Another intriguing element is that flowers seemed to have arisen during the Cretaceous ‘out of nowhere’.
How's that work? Well, the layers aren't nearly as distinct as Evolutionists need them to be. There are a lot of fossils "out of their depth" that get quietly ignored because they don't fit the narrative. We also have Polystrate fossils, such as trees that are fossilized with their roots in one layer and their tops in an entirely different one evolutionists claim to be millions of years older. Oh, they say, well that one place obviously the layers formed quickly but these other ones were millions of years because we need that for our asinine theory to work. And not just a few such, there are thousands of polystrate fossils all over the planet.
These fossils are impossible with the current understanding of evolution but exactly what we'd expect to see if there was a global flood and a certain amount of "sorting" happened as the floodwaters eroded the landscape and buried things en mass. We'd see sea life being buried first, then amphibians that live near low-lying water, then we'd see animals that might run away from the surging waters and eventually drown at higher elevations, and finally birds that flew to high ground and didn't drown until the end. Trees meanwhile would be buried alongside these things, potentially extending from one layer to the next. The fossil record neatly supports creation and even points clearly to a global flood. Fossils don't speak Evolutionists do.