Why does evolution select against atheists?

This is correct, these instruction have to come from somewhere, heredity comes from the previous life.
Life comes from life, that is a fact it has never been seen that anything other than that is possible. Scientists doing experiments to create life in a lab, can only show that that is true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You take some science courses. ( sorrry about that I couldn't resist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hay you,
Then tell me how one is suppose to come up with a cell not having DNA?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you notice that these are all completed animals, no transitional ones. More science fiction.

 

The real question is how did the cell get DNA with instructions the first time?
Just having DNA material is not instructions

 

And they are, insofar as our definition runs.

.

Yes and no. Some mutations are irrelevant, some permit an organism merely to compete more effectively with its conspecifics, some allow an organism to exploit a new resource or environment, and some affect species survival over the long term.

Well, what kind of leg? A flatworm's marginal edge is still a leg, by the definition that it permits movement. Given the immense amount of time we're talking about and the simplicity of early locomotive instruments, why should we be surprised that

Ah - but they are.

The definition you're using - legs - is a difficult one, because it's not well understood sometimes. Look around you: at your cat, your hamster, a bird flying by. These are all variations on a simple tetrapod body plan: four limbs, two in front, two in back. It appears that this plan arose as the result of several macro-evolutions (well, deletions, I think anyway) in a number of regulatory body development genes, turning large numbers of radial fin elements into a few, strong bones. Clearly, not all mutations did this, and thus they were not suited for the continued expansion of a species onto land - but, those that did were suited for this expansion. Consider the advantages to amphibian fitness: a vast, unexploited land ripe for colonization, with no predators. And these mutations allowed amphibs to become truly amphibious, dragging their corpulent selves onto land. Sounds almost too good to be true, doesn't it? Well, it was: their predators eventually caught the same mutations (or else evolved from them) and they got fast enough to start catching them and so on and so on. Predator-prey relationships "caught up" to the newly-exploited niche.
Now, amphibs came from fish, and fish didn't really have "limbs" until the lobe-fins came around, our beloved ancestors. Prior to this, they had fins. The problem is that it's harder to pin down the development of fins because the fossil record is harder to work with the further back you go. But the evolution of fins themselves is not really such a complex process either.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323212021.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/11/evolution/zimmer-text

As you can see, many of the genetic elements involved with fin production simply ended up being involved with limb production. What you have to remember is that much of biology is labile. If you're a lobe-finned fish and your strange mutant gene starts off building you finger-like things instead of radial arches (fins), then your blood vessels are simply going to try to expand out along what one might call their developmental "best guess". ("Neotenic best guess"?) So they'll go here and there and to be honest the whole thing will actually probably work moderately well. (Your descendants with new mutations allowing better interplay between blood vessels and bones will probably be a little more fit than you, but that's all to the good.) Same with nerves, really.

This wiki link is a good one for observing the intermediary stages of limb/tetrapod development. It's only a starter, so I recommend checking out the links too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod

 

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

Cite your source!!!!!!

 

If you are going to create millions of animals, you are going use planning in the DNA and for major shapes. Many of the same materials are in all animals. Like teeth, skin hair fur eyes etc. So you build DNA with all of these instructions in it. Some animals are very close in how they look.
Scientists nor anyone else have seen that it is possible fro a cat to become a dog or anything else. The same with humans. So scientists saying the everything came from a single cell , is science fiction, there is no evidence for that. But we do have evidence from cats making more cats and dog more dogs. The same with humans. And chimps.

 

You are proceeding from an assumption not supported by any statistical or biological evidence. Who is the "you"?

Many of the same materials are in all animals. Like teeth, skin hair fur eyes etc. So you build DNA with all of these instructions in it. Some animals are very close in how they look.

But no one is claiming that a cat is turning into a dog. We do claim, and quite strongly, that parallel lineages exist contemporaneously, and that evolution is ongoing. It would be possible for a line of cats to evolve into something that resembled a dog, but such a line of descent would be contingent on the ancestral cat genome, selection, drift and incident mutations, plus introgression from other cats.

The same with humans.

This is completely wrong. All living organisms contain DNA, and each is related to each other in a way that roughly corresponds with their morphological similarity. Moreover, we have elaborated several processes to account for inheritance, correlation, mutation and evolution. I'm sorry, but these are points far too overriding to be dismissed. Your argument is refused, sir.

And of different morphotypes within such species reproducing themselves. What would happen, one wonders, if such morphotypes were free to continue to evolve and to mutate in reproductive isolation? Stop and wonder for a while, and don't be afraid of the answer that suggests itself to you. (It has nothing to do with God, if that's your concern.)

 

The you is a creator. And the evidence is the creation. The design in the creation, and the inability for any of man's thing to prove anything other than creation. Scientists have tried and still don't know how life came about, and have tried to think of ways to show that no creator was need, but can not prove and have to go against the evidence.

 

Scientists say life started from a cell, and now we have cats and dogs, something had to turn into something else at some point.

 

Transitional animals are all complete animals.

 

Scientists do not know exactly what the first life form was, they assume it was some like a cell, but they don't know. Inheritance comes from previous life. The first life would not have had any inheritance. Or instructions in the DNA. So where did inheritance come from?

 

The first life would have had to have a mechanism of heredity. The most likely candidate for this is RNA.

Beyond that, it doesn't matter if we don't know about abiogenesis, evolution happens, and it is the origin of human beings.

 

This is where creationist can really help scientists. Scientists wonder about things that are not real. They assume no creation. Things have been around for a long time now. And human still produce humans, and cat, other cats.

 

Then where did RNA get the heredity? This is all speculation with the scientists, when trying to show an idea that has no evidence. The reason scientists, can not prove their ideas is because , you can prove something that isn't real.

 

You haven't offered any evidence supporting creation.
It isn’t scientists duty to prove creation or that there is a God. You’re the one making the assertion concerning creation and God's existence. It is your responsibility to prove it.
Your harangue is irrational.

 

Only in scientists minds, because 'evolution' doesn't answer the question. Even Darwin knew that.

 

What answers the question? How does creationism work?

 

The evidence of life and of DNA ( instructions) and that humans have many traits that that are not necessary for life( survival) like music, creating, math, science, speech, discovery etc. This makes life interesting and pleasurable.
There is much more to human life than just physical science.