Dogs produce other kinds of dogs, cats produce variations of cats, but a mouse doesn't produce a variation of a Giraffe. those Macro events could never be found by Darwin, ever. The missing link so to speak.
I'm going to give you a hint, kid. If your understanding of evolution is anything similar to Pokemon - it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.
Back to evolution, say cosmic evolution. Where in the science books does it succinctly say, the universe was created by the big bang?
Here's another hint: If you think Scientific evolution (the Theory of Evolution) talks about anything other than evolution
(in the biological sense; the ongoing changes to species over the course of generations: ie, not astronomy
) - it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.
On the other hand, i would propose that the very meaning of the word Universe, or translated as Uni = single and Verse = a spoken sentence, gives an insightful meaning into the origins. And I just happen to know the sentence .....Let there be light!
Even if you hadn't been demonstrably wrong in this assumption
, why should this matter? What we call the item in question does not change what it is. We call many things by wierd names.
For example: Is a mushroom a room to be filled with mush; or is it a type of fungus?
If you say it's the former - it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.
sol·ip·sism? ?[sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPA
1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
You should get an A+ for using big words that have nothing to do with the conversation Curious. Bravo
Erm... both definitions are perfect here.
By asking if the other person exists (and therefore implicitly asking for proof) as you did in what was quoted of you there, you invoked definition 1. You also are displaying SPAG (self-projection as God) in many places, which perfectly encompasses definition 2.
Now, I can see how you might ignore definition 2, but you couldn't even get definition 1? Since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking, then I think (altogether now) it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size . If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross .
Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.
Your example here is actually a very good demonstration of what we're talking about. Even the smallest of changes (in DNA or individual words) with a large base to work with (the entire DNA sequence or an entire sentence) can result in massive changes in "meaning" (humans/chimps or opposite linguistic meanings).
As for "barriers" to cross: I think you're underestimating at least the length of time needed for a major change (usually measured in millions
of years). For that matter, you don't even speculate on the rate that mutations occur at. It is in fact, this very reckless disregard for inquiry (as in when you looked down on the phrase "I don't know") that tells me that it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.
Ambassador Pony. bm? best mate? best material? bravo man!! I see you are efficient. A gentleman and a scholar!!
I was considering being nice while explaining that "bm" in this context means "bookmark", but then I realized being nice would prevent me from ending all my sections with: it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.
lets see class....something came from nothing. No really...it did...just close your eyes and try to imagine it...cmon.
Hoo boy... just like the evolution mistake above, if your understanding of the Big Bang Theory is anything like an infant's understanding of a Jack in the Box, then it can safely be... just... y'know what? I give up. You're a lost cause.
You just make so many mistakes and misrepresentations of your opponent. If we were to liken it to boxing, you'd be the guy attacking the ref while we're waving at you and saying "Hey, buddy! Over here!" You really don't
know what you're talking about. You attack concepts we don't hold, misrepresent what we say, and then claim you've beaten us. I mean, we can do that too:
"Hey guys! I just beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match!
"Erm, no - that was b2, wearing a Mike Tyson holloween mask and punching the ref...
"Exactly; I beat Mike Tyson!