15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

Where did he post this? I would like to read the original. Your analogy seems similar to cancer.

 

Yeah, the sheer size of numbers in the universe is unimaginably large. It's like trying to watch the life of every human who has ever lived. Then trying to watch the life of every dog who has ever lived. The life of every cat that has ever lived. The life of every mouse that has ever lived. There is just SO MUCH going on, and has been going on.

Another weird way to think about it, is to imagine everything you've ever seen in your life; then imagine adding in a cartoon of a donkey in the lower left corner. Suddenly twice as many life experiences. Or add shovel in the lower left corner, three times as many life experiences. The volume of possibilities and numbers in life is truly mind boggling.

 

It's sort of like cancer, but sometimes it's a good genetic freak, like Lebron.

 

It's been mentioned several times in this thread that most mutations are detrimental. This is not true. Most mutations are neither advantageous nor detrimental. But certainly more are detrimental than advantageous.

 

No, the theory of evolution is a sound theory. Not saying cell mutation can occur or disputing evolution in this sense.

But you had a key word. 1 cell makes 2 then 2 make 4, etc.

Notice they are all cells? That all already have DNA in it?

What I am disputing is the first cell being programed from chance.

 

I don't know. What does his dad look like? I have never seen him, perhaps he didn't mutate at all.

 

Good point!

 

Well when you find an observed occurrence of this theory, then you have something. Until then, it's just speculation.

 

Seems like a convenient situation to me. And you don't need one scientist to observe it. It can be an ongoing study, much like the ones we see evolving right now.

 

Observation of family history. Pictures, life records. They existed, and documented.

 

Here ya go, Mags! Don't say I never gave ya nuttn'

http://www.portlandcomedy.com/events/church_shows.html?gclid=CP2jt-HHpL0CFRRsfgodPgUAMQ

 

Lol wut?!

 

I am totally unimpressed. You have no original thoughts. All you can do is copy/paste from creationist web sites without even bothering to research if any of what you wrote is true. Many of these unanswered questions have been answered, some 100 years ago, some more recently. You would know that if you bothered to spend 30 minutes actually fact checking before you copy/paste.

It is, however, true, that we do not yet know how life originated on Earth. As Bill Nye said, let's go find out. Science never claimed to know "everything". Science asks questions and seeks answers. Every answer gives rise to 100 new questions. That is how knowledge grows. And that is how science is different from copy/paste religion. Copy/paste religion says "god did it, end of story". We saw this in the recent debate where Nye said "let's find out" and the creationist said "a book was written 2000 years ago". What a dreary boring view of the universe. Everything already written down 2000 years ago, nothing to learn.

 

The genetic mutation/natural selection engine is part of the equation, but doesn't seem adequate to explain all evolution. The origin of life, DNA and even life itself as we can observe it are big mysteries. Someone brought up how a chicken develops from a single egg, but we still don't know what coordinates the differintiating cells into the complete organism. How are instinctual behaviors passed down in DNA? Baby spiders are born knowing how to spin a web for example.

 

Well written and I wish some in the scientific community think in the same way. It's okay to be wrong 99% of the time, as long as an open mind and unbiased study is used.

Hasn't been the case in this debate for most.