Isn’t it funny how preachers of evolution never answer the question?

Question

I asked this
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071004092145AA5YF1a

And asked;

“I mean that is only logical isn’t it? There’s not a lot of difference in that scenario than in someone looking at a structure so complex as DNA, and saying “yeah its here by chance nothing but random events in nature brought this into being”

Call it chance, random events, selection, whatever you please, but the simple fact of the matter is this. If just one bit of the code in DNA is not right, the whole organism is defective. Yet some of you claim that this just “evolved” over eons of time, when we know, that if it is not whole it will not work at all

Answer 1

yeah even dna is smarter than the educated idiots that are

called evolutionists.

if something were to evolve it could only because it was in Gods plan to do so.

Answer 2

it looks like hte same old chrisitan arguement.



NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM

mutation is random. often it creates useless things, like 6 fingered people, an extra pair of obliques in the sides, now these are of no use to nature, just like the extra eyes you mentioned



but every once in a while, it will create something good like a longer neck, that in a drought will give that animal just those few extra cm they need to get to the leaves of a tree and live past the drought. shorter necked creatures will loose more, and longer necked less. maknig longer necked creatures more dominant. natural selection is not random!



oh and p.s. there is a big difference between the empire state building and a living organism. ONE IS ALIVE THE OTHER IS NOT. so you cannot even make this comparison. that would be maknig the comparison a rolling rock is actually walking.



and that little claim you made on dna having to be perfectly right or the animal will be defective. that is jsut plain nonsense. that is what we call genetic diseases. and its only a problem when both strands of chromosomes share the same abboration. secondly, there are many virusses that mutate dna as a way of reproducing. and many virusses have been embedded in our dna already. yes we still function perfectly. even with our missing genes.

Answer 3

What is your real question? It sounds like you are just trying to disprove something because you don't understand it and trying to prove something else that you believe....but cannot be proven.



Evolution is not entirely random. If you throw a bunch of bouncy balls in a room, you might say their movement is random, but it actually isn't. There is a set of forces and laws that will determine where they will go. Gravity, initial trajectory, their coefficient of bounciness. If we had the mental capacity to understand this, we'd know exactly where they'd all go.

But we humans are NOWHERE close to being able to compute that kind of thing on the fly. And when it comes to DNA and evolution, there is so much involved that we can only discover and speculate, but nobody knows the entire answer.

If you change one bit of code, it doesn't mean it won't work. It means something will be different. You can actually change a person by altering (or adding) genes. They have recently identified the gene associated with a good metabolism and may figure out a way how to turn fat people into thin people no matter what they eat.

Your question displays a misunderstanding of evolution to begin with so you should research it so you have something educated to say.

Answer 4

First, you're saying random cannot result in a specific result? That's the nature of random... eventually it arrives at all the results.



Second, if one bit of the DNA sequence is incorrect the organism is not "defective." It is different. Thus we have two different genders, a lot of combinations of eye, hair, and skin color. We have a pretty random selection of heights and weights. We have almost an infinite variety of body types.



Third, sometimes if the DNA sequence is such that the organism cannot survive or compete effectively with other organisms, that organism dies... and along with it, the particular DNA sequence. That's called "natural selection."



We see evolution all the time. We develop an insecticide to obliterate a pest eating our food. The next generation evolves to be resistant to that insecticide. Man's evolving too. But man's lifespan is somewhat longer than that of an insect of some one-celled critter. But we're losing our little toe because we no longer need that appendage for balance since we all pretty much wear shoes. We're losing our appendix because we now cook everything... including plant fiber... the the point that it's almost soup, and therefore easy to digest.



If one looks at the Sequoia, the oldest thing on Earth, one might presume that it's not changing. The tree doesn't look any different than it did 500 years ago. But, the next generation might be more tolerant to the pollutants we're spewing into the atmosphere. And we won't even know because we'll all be gone by then.



What I find funny is how those who espouse creation feel no need to prove their theory yet, hypocritically requiring proof of everything science says. And, though the creationist cannot prove any of his or her contentions, points to science's lack of proof for some of theirs as absolute proof that evolution is absolutely wrong and creation is absolutely correct.



I believe it was in the 1960s when science conducted an experiment. They stuck some simple elements, some common gases, and some water into a closed glass container. They subjected the container and its contents to electricity, heat and light suspected to exist during the creation of a planet such as earth. After a few days they noticed a brownish film had formed on the inside of the container. They opened the container and found organic compounds.



Science was elated... true, it wasn't life, but it was organic.



Creationists were elated... science wasn't able to create life.



The creationists were correct... science hadn't created life... if you mean something that broke out of the container and walked away. But science had only been working on it for a few days... Earth had a million years... and a much larger container. But religion doesn't care about fact... unless it supports their contention. Science admits it doesn't know. Creationists jump on that as proof that they're wrong.



The lack of proof is only the lack of proof. It's not negative proof. The creationists haven't grasped that yet.

Answer 5

As I am sure you are aware, science has been able to duplicate early world conditions with gasses and when adding electricity amino acids were formed. This experiment took place in 1952.



Amino Acids are not proteins but are the building blocks of protein. So the 'premodial mix' theory is very possible.



Your claim that DNA is too complex to evolve is just not accurate.



In fact we have examples of DNA evolution available in different subspecies of animals. DNA technology is actually helping us understand how evolution occured.



Intelligent design proponents always claim that there is a huge leap from amino acids to dna structure, and they are correct. But that doesn't mean that that leap didn't take place, and it definitely doesn't require the application of a devine being to fill in the gap.



If you take a look at a stalactite, you might state that it is very complex, filled with beauty and color and clearly couldn't be an accident, it had to be created. You would be correct, but the means of the creation was not man or god, it was natural forces including gravity, water and minerals, that combined in the right circumstances to create the stalactite.



Religious people look at the stalactite and claim that a God that has no evidence for existence created it. They do the same with DNA and all things in nature.



If creation is required for complexity to exist, then it must have taken a bigger God to create the complex God that created the universe right?

Answer 6

1st of all, you are comparing evolution with chance, when its in fact selection between a lot of chances, now, if we select the best possibility out of a thousand, it should be good, right? thats how DNA gets to change over time

2nd: If a bit of the code in DNA was not right, and the whole organism was defective, all people would look the same. DNA mutations occur, and in nature, those that render the organism stronger get to be passed on to the next generation, and the bad mutations die with the (now) defective organism.

There may be a god behind this, who knows? but science aims to expail a how, and you wanna thrash the how, to give credit to your why.

Nice question though, you should have posted it in the Biology section.

Answer 7

take a class in biology, and read up on evolution before you critique it with poorly put together arguments, evolution (in general principle) is a fact, its not just a theory, it would be like trying to say the earth does not rotate on its axis, its just not logical to question it because of the mounds of evidence that support it, now when you say evolution cannot be responsible for the complexity of life, you are mistaken, however this does not mean that evolution created the first instance of life, it surely did not, and furthermore there is a not so distinct line between alive and dead as you might think, now what most christians think is that a monkey of today had a few mutations over time and after several generations is now a human, well thats not really true. you have to be willing to open yourself up to the possibility of how life evolved on this planet to understand it, as long as you assume the core principle of evolution is false, you will never understand anything more about it

Answer 8

I love it when stupid people ask questions trying to talk like they've disproven some evolutionary theory and allt hey do is babble on about how THEY can't understand how certain things work so that means that it is flawed.



It's untrue because YOUR brain can't comprehend it, and when people don't answer you in a way that makes your brain work you post another ridiculous "question" asking why nobody ever answers your question.



They DO answer your questions, but you are too dense to understand and being that you do not understand you reject their answers immediately! (IF you even read them at all!)



There is still A LOT of research being done to answer these questions... nobody has ALL the answers. The truth of the matter is that the answers will be found one day, and i guarantee that the answer is not going to be "goddidit."



And even when the answers are discovered, you will probably still reject because your brain cannot latch on to it long enough for it to make sense.



I swear, you're like a bunch of children with ADD or something.... you ask questions but don't have the attention span to try to understand the answers.

Answer 9

If you're really interested in knowing the answer to what you're asking, why don't you post this question in the science section, and not the religion & spirituality section? Could it be that you're really not interesting in learning anything, but just starting an argument?

And it's clear by the question that you don't understand how evolution works. We're not going to grow eyes on the back of our heads or three hands simply because it MIGHT be more convenient.

If you want to debate or argue against evolution, at least learn about evolution first. Then debate specific facts, USING facts that contradict the facts you wish to debate.

You can't argue against something if you can't be bothered to learn anything about it.



And people are answering your question. You're just not listening because they're not telling you what you want to hear.

Answer 10

Dear:



[ ] Clueless Noob [ ] Lamer [ ] Logtoucher

[ ] Loser [ ] Spammer [ ] Troll

[ ] Pervert [ ] Geek [ ] Weakling

[ ] Idiot [ ] Nerd [ ] Unworthy

[ ] Racist [ ] Fed [X ] Freak

[ ] Fundie [ ] Sociopath [ ] Yahoo moderator

[ ] Unbearably self-righteous person



I took exception to your recent:



[ ] Answer [ X] Question [ ] Personal message



It was (check all that apply):



[ ] Lame/Pathetic [ ] Stupid [ ] Abusive

[ ] Clueless [ ] Idiotic [ ] Brain-damaged

[ ] Imbecilic [ ] Arrogant [ ] Malevolent

[ ] Contemptible [ ] Libelous [ ] Ignorant

[ ] Boring [ ] Dim [ ] Cowardly

[ ] Deceitful [ ] Demented [ ] Self-righteous

[ ] Crazy [ ] Weird [ ] Hypocritical

[ ] Loathsome [ ] Despicable

[ ] Belligerent [ X] Mind-numbing [ ] Maladroit

[ ] Much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable

Additional Details



Your attention is drawn to the fact that:



[ ] This question has been asked approximately two million times in the past week

[ ] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others

[ ] You directly flamed me

[ ] You showed intelligence off the deep end of the bell curve

[ X] You backed up *nothing* you said

[ ] Not only that, I could argue your case better than you

[ ] You will undoubtedly one day be eligible for the Darwin Award

[ ] Nobody likes you

[ ] This has been pointed out to you before

[ ] You assumed anti-liberal was Republican or anti-conservative was Democrat

[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting

[ ] You used "Dr. Dino" as a verifiable source

[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message

[ X] You posted an artfully disguised equivalent of a "YOU ALL SUCK" message

[ ] You posted low-IQ flame-bait

[ ] You posted a blatantly obvious troll

[ ] You cited Wikipedia and/or YouTube and expect us to take you seriously

[ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON

[ ] You are profoundly ignorant of atheism

[ ] You are profoundly ignorant of your own religion

[ X] You are profoundly ignorant of science

[ ] You are profoundly ignorant of life in general

[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed on general principles



It is recommended that you:



[ ] Get a clue

[ ] FOAD

[ ] Go away

[ ] Grow up

[ ] Never post again

[ X] Read all similar questions

[ ] stop using R&S and get a life

[ ] stop sending personal hate mail and get a life

[ ] ask a cop for a very needed tasing

[ ] Have your medication adjusted

[ ] DIAF

[ ] Actually post something relevant

[ X] Read a science book

[ X] Apologize to everybody on R&S

[ ] consume excrement

[ ] consume excrement and thus expire

[X ] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you're talking about



In Closing, I'd like to Say:



[ ] You need to seek psychiatric help

[ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else

[ ] Some day you will die, and that makes me happy

[ ] Learn how to respect people different than you or get off R&S

[ ] Most of the above

[ ] All of the above

[ X] Some of the above, not including All of the above

[ ] You are so clueless that I didn't even bother filling in this form



Sincerely,



Chris Cross Christ

Answer 11

You said, "...the simple fact of the matter is this. If just one bit of the code in DNA is not right, the whole organism is defective." This is absolutely NOT true. Think about people with sickle cell anemia, or Down's Syndrome...something is errant in their DNA, but nobody would call them defective. Actually, these little variations in the genetic code are the sort of things that make the theory of evolution all the more probable.

Answer 12

I read your link.. you still don't understadn what eveolution is do you. First read about the theory, and how it supposedly works. Then try to imagine that the idea of evolution can totally be consistent with religion. Just not for people who still think every single word in there is true. God as the Great Architect....



Do you actually believe the earth is 6000 years old, as per the bible?

Do you believe that dinosaurs never existed - they aren't mentined in the bible...

Do you believe that other planets don't exist - they aren't mentioned either?

How was their light the day before God created the Sun?

Answer 13

As answer to your first question: We adapt to the environment that adaption will be permanent if the environment doesn't change.



As answer to your next question: You might not catch people, whom actually know about that specialised area at the time you're posting it. Now you have an answer.



The adaption to an environment can take several generations is during the period of change, nothing will be perfect. Right now we are adapting to the increasing level of pollution, just to take an example.

Answer 14

Your ignorance to the science of evolution is the problem here. If you had a real question concerning evolution, it would get answered correctly. Instead you ask questions based on ignorance that have no answers, because they are not valid questions. It would be like me asking you "if God created man, why is a banana yellow, who was the first murderer, and why do I have hair?"

Answer 15

Your "question" is a PRATT. Point Refuted A Thousand Times. It's a common creationist tactic, that shows your complete lack of understanding of how evolution actually works, and your willful ignorance on the subject.



Your "question" was answered, and you were exposed as hopelessly ignorant and dishonest, you just don't want to admit it.

Answer 16

im not quite sure what you are getting at. evolution is a makes sense in hindsight thing. that is due to natural selection. there are mutants with extra arms already, due to radiation, or some other genetic mutation. this is usually seen as a sign of poor health, and thus it doesnt really explode into the gene pool. it doesnt really make any extra benefit. yes, the concept of having eyes in the back of your head fits nicely with the cliche parents and adults have for their childrens bad behavior. but that doesnt mean it will or must be the next form of evolution. mutations appear to be random, and from whatever random change they make, if it has an advantage, and it makes people reproduce with them, it will then slowly become a part of our normal gene pool and maybe become a future form of us.

Answer 17

"If just one bit of the code in DNA is not right, the whole organism is defective."



You couldn't be more wrong!



Evolution depends on mistakes in DNA. Some of those mistakes are bad and cause the organism to have less chance of survival. Some of those mistakes are helpful and give the organism a better chance of survival.



It's the ones that have a better chance of survival that pass on their mutations to the next generation.

Answer 18

Your entire question was illogical. Things evolve out of necessity. We do not NEED extra hands or eyes. So the chances that humans will eventually evolve into having them is slim. And no one that acknowledges evolution has ever alleged, or would be shallow enough to believe, that buildings or other inanimate beings can "evolve". Furthermore, if this 3-handed, multi-eyed human of yours were really around, don't you think he could....oh, I dunno.....read a book about the Empire State Building and know how it came to be and the history of the building?!



You cannot expect logical answers to your absurdly illogical question, my dear!

Answer 19

There are a lot of scenarios whereby DNA could have evolved slowly, bit by bit over time. DNA didn't happen all at once overnight, and it didn't have to.

I do sometimes wonder however, why an elephant has roughly the same type of DNA as pool algea. Good question overall.

Answer 20

You quote the question but you didn't read my answer. Get this through your head.



EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY OF RANDOM EVENTS, NO BIOLOGIST SAYS ANIMALS FELL TOGETHER BY CHANCE.



I say again - mutation is random, selection is not.

Answer 21

The short answer is: no, you're not at ALL logical.



But to sift through the gibberish and try to divine what you're trying to say....



Evolution is not "nothing but random events"; and to say that it is demonstrates that you don't know the first thing about what evolution is or how it works.



MUTATION is random.



NATURAL SELECTION -- where the crucible that is the natural world burns away that which is harmful and usless and preserves that which improves an individual's chances for survival -- it the EXACT OPPOSITE of random.

Answer 22

Dammit.. look... you get the answer from us, you don't like the goddamned answer you're given. Not liking it doesn't make it false.



The answer, that you have been told over and over and over again is that SCIENCE DOESN'T SAY IT ALL CAME FROM NOTHING IT JUST SAYS THERE ISN'T A "CREATOR".



Whats it going to take for that to sink into the religious brain? A labotomy?

Answer 23

They don't answer the question because it is nonsensical, you begin your question with the false assumption that evolution has some predetermined direction.





But to answer it, if the Empire State Building has as many errors as the human body, they would be correct in assuming it had an UNINTELLIGENT designer.............

Answer 24

My goodness you are not too bright are you!!!! You have my pity.



Several months ago I saw a story on Fox News about a discovery of a "man" that lived between 2 'types' of early men. In the story it was estimated that it took 239,000 GENERATIONS for one man to evolve into the next.



Do you have the mental capacity to grasp how many years are included in 239,000 generations?

Answer 25

You do realize that evolution and creationism could be one in the same... ever think that if there was a smart enugh being to create this whole world that he'd put in the ability for his creatures to evolve and better themselves through time...



Just a thought....



and as a note, those errors happen all the time... one would be cancer...

Answer 26

Seems to me your question was answered. Can you not read? Or do you just ignore what you don't agree with?

Answer 27

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Answer 28

It wasn't worth answering.

Stupid questions like that one (and this one for that matter) only deserve our scorn.

You can't possibly be that ignorant about the reality of Evolution, ergo, you must be a troll.

Answer 29

Looks like you got at least one or two good answers to your question. Whether or not you *liked* them, or even wanted them, is a different story...

Answer 30

Yes and there would be some that died before us to be

found along the way,don,t you think.

Answer 31

ha

Answer 32

No. What's funny is how you ignore the answers.

Answer 33

and some imaginary being just said it shall be and poof it was done makes more sense, this is why we think all of you are so stupid

Answer 34

Intelligent design is totally flawed if you can not prove there is a God.

Answer 35

Atheists will get mad at you. I wonder what evolve after human like four eyes and eight legs.