There is no evolution or creationism - this is the new Matrix/DNA world view

If the human brain contains all of the information necessary to produce a sculpture of Platos head, then how can that same brain do mathematics?Seriously ICANT, this has got to be one of the lamest arguments every made.

Hi Tangle, I don't expect one species to give birth to a different species.Neither does the observed fossils indicate that one species gives birth to another species.What is observed is that at different times in the earth's history that all of a sudden a lot of new species appeared and was observed.God Bless,

Hi Cat, So why is not that slow process observed on a daily basis today with a complete record of the process?God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, I am not talking about a possible result. I am talking about observed results from years of farming.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, You mean asking if the DNA in each cell contained all the information to build a human body and how information can be added to that DNA is an argument. I thought it was a question.God Bless,

Because it takes generations, not days.You're basically asking how you can know that your fingernails are growing when they're the same length as they were last night - well, yeah, you're gonna have to wait more than 8 hours to notice.For evolutions, it's going to be centuries. Well, fossilization is a rare event.How complete are you looking for? Horses, whales, and humans all have a great record of the process, but its never going to be totally complete.

Sperm and egg cells do not have all the information needed to build a human body. When they combine to create a new genome, they create a genome that has never existed before. If you want to call it a wolf, Chihuahua, human, or whatever, that is up to you. What is important is that this organism with this genome has never existed before.Over time, mutations in each generation will keep accumulating. When you compare individuals that lived millions of years apart there may very well be differences between them. At one point does one become the other? That is entirely arbitrary.When does someone go from young to old? When does a young man go from being short to being tall? Skinny to fat, and maybe back to skinny? These are spectrums, just as evolutionary change is.

That is exactly what we should see with evolution when those time points are separated by millions of years.If all we had of you was two pictures, one from when you were 5 and another when you were 50, could we say that you suddenly became old instead of gradually aging?

The accumulation of mutations over time causes species to be different through time.You have one of two choices.1. You can say that mutations can't produce new information. If that is your argument, then you have argued yourself out of the debate. If differences in DNA sequence that give rise to changes in morphology are not changes in information, then evolution doesn't need to produce new information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.2. You just admit that the most honest approach is to admit that mutations can produce new information.The problem is that anti-evolutionists focus so hard on making it impossible for mutations to produce new information that they lose sight of what they were really trying to explain, how morphology can change over time.

Nope. New species do not suddenly appear nor is the fossil record a tape recording of history, it's a few snapshots taken millions of years apart.

Let's restore the context to your claim. Quite frankly it is difficult to tell what you are claiming happens. You keep spraying a single worm and eventually that worm produces immune worms? I don't believe such a thing happens but I don't believe this is what you mean even though it is literally what you said.I think you meant to say that you were spraying succeeding generations of worms. If so my question to you is what type of analysis of the worms did you do that allows you to tell us that the immune worms do not continue new information in their DNA that their ancestors did not have. How would you recognize new information and distinguish that from a beneficial mutation that did not add new information?

Except that your question was not a query regarding 'how' information could be added to the DNA, now was it? Here is your question: Your question has a built in bad argument. Just because the information is sufficient to build a human body does not mean that said information is insufficient for other tasks. I provided an example intended to point out the problem.Secondly, if a mutation does not add information, then your question has a simple answer. Some change to the current information, via mutation, is what is needed. If you don't believe that a mutation is new information, then I challenge you to show that something other than mutation is needed.

Hi Tangle, So you have absolutely no evidence that evolution has taken place.God Bless,

I have a photo of myself beside a car with the Manhattan skyline in the background. I have another photo of myself beside the same car with the St. Louis Gateway Arch in the background. I have another photo of myself beside the same car with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background.You're saying that I have absolutely no evidence that I drove from Atlantic to Pacific.

Hi Cat, My fingernails are longer now at 12:00 o'clock than they were at 8:00 AM when I ate breakfast. The horse record that RAZD has trotted out so many times has been proven to be incorrect.Can you point me to the Whales you are referring too?Now as far as humans the latest jaw that was found dates to 2.8 million years which would probably mean that there were humans when Lucy was here. Just food for thought.God Bless,