I have no faith in humanity...

you guys are retarded, not her. and here's why:

1. genetic limits- genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary incredibly, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?

2. Cyclical change - Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macro evolutionary theory requires, they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex, Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during droughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence

3. Irreducible complexity - An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order, at the same time, for it to function, therefore any intermediates would be nonfunctional

4. Molecular isolation - It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain would not even exist

5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#316 to #217 - GoReMoTe (04/22/2012) [-]

contribooting in response to #3:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Opening paragraph essentially says it was a nice try, but not good enough. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can and do exist.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +1

#400 to #316 - GoReMoTe (04/23/2012) [-]

I'm not informed of the rest of your points, but I do have a few things I'd like to bring up:

1. Made sense until you said "If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non-intelligent natural selection to do so?"
~Nature has time, resources, and complete access to each genetic permutation that we would call a "dog". Humans are limited by their knowledge of each permutation, about 70 years (maybe ~14 generations of dogs), and the amount of humans that can even address the question in the first place. Nature definitely has the advantage in evolution here.

2. Your assumption here is that cycles are perfect -- a generational cycle might produce a hard beak, but it almost might produce differently-colored feathers or a longer wingspan. Then, when the bird cycles "back" to a soft beak, it's unlikely that its feathers and wingspan will also change back; hence, the creation of a new bird.

4. Ok, sure. But if such a relationship implies a common creator, then why doesn't every other life form on the planet have such a close DNA relationship?

5. Transitional lifeforms in themselves imply a certain direction to evolution, that something, somewhere recognizes that it would rather have feathers instead of scales in order to survive. This is a form of circular logic -- some creator must be planning this evolution of scales to feathers --> creator changes species from scales to feathers over generations --> gradual changes imply a creator. As you say, these transitional lifeforms cannot exist. What, then, does that say about the existence of a creator, by your own logic?

-2

#272 to #217 - memeinmycoffee has deleted their comment. [-]

-3

#249 to #217 - andyerin has deleted their comment. [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -2

#258 to #249 - neednsfw (04/22/2012) [-]

No, it doesn't.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -4

#257 to #217 - sikideku (04/22/2012) [-]

1. Assuming that current genetic manipulation accessible by dog breeders is the best there ever will be in existence, and that Humanity is better at doing what nature does, than what nature does.

2. Assuming that all biospheres experience constant cyclical change, and do not undergo major environmental change throughout time.

3. Assuming that creatures can not undergo change in a way that we have not perceived, simple because we have not perceived it, and that Human Beings are all knowing in our couple hundred years of studying things that have been around for billions.

4. Assuming that anything you just said states anything at all other than, "A creator COULD have done it", and that if creatures that are distinct biochemically, that they can't find a way to eat each other, which all in all doesn't make much sense.

5. Assuming that what little of environmental change we have actually witnessed provides us with all of the possibilities for lifeforms ever.

6. Assuming that anons suddenly deserve an opinion.

Make an account and explain it to me, I wish to learn all I can, but please make an attempt to prove why you are right, instead of only trying to prove others wrong.

-4

#233 to #217 - KazumaKyu has deleted their comment. [-]

Show Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -7

#269 to #217 - Keleth (04/22/2012) [-]

"Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat " then please explain the pterodactyl. dinosaurs came from reptiles, although I'm sure you'll disagree with that. reptile>bird like reptile>bird. then feathers be all over them mother fuckers

Show Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply -8

#228 to #217 - URLOCKER (04/22/2012) [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +11

#166 - MasterManiac (04/22/2012) [-]

I'm sick of idiots like this making us Christians look like imbeciles. Just because you don't fully understand something doesnt prove the existence of God.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +11

#63 - zarcos (04/22/2012) [-]

I don't hate religious people. I don't hate atheists. But by the nine do I hate fucktards.....

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +10

#102 - Nomadnecroma (04/22/2012) [-]

I have been using this gif far too often.

Home	RSS Feeds
Funny Pictures	Funny Videos
Funny GIFs	YouTube Videos
Text/Links	Comic Editor
User Rankings	Channels
Copyright Removal Request
Image Boards >>> Advice Anime & Manga Brony Childhood Nostalgia Drawing & Art Games Hating Items Music Pokemon Religion Social Sports Television

I have no faith in humanity...

My Jesus freak ex girlfriend and her ignorance.

Comments(410):