| |
| |
|
| 04 Sep 2013 11:11 PM |
| I think the term is "tl;dr" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| 04 Sep 2013 11:17 PM |
Essentially what I was going to respond with but I need to go to bed so am cheating:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100408111026AAgOsbm |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
syfus
|
  |
| Joined: 13 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4132 |
|
|
| 04 Sep 2013 11:19 PM |
| What the bloody hell are you going on about. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
| |
|
| 04 Sep 2013 11:21 PM |
And here's a copypaste regarding macro just for kicks:
One of the most fascinating fallacies proposed by the scientific community to support evolutionary theory is evidenced in the response made by icarus62. The argument, as presented, has the blush of conviction, yet ignores an obvious truth. The presented argument is that an entire population of a given genotype was infected by a virus that was somehow absorbed into the DNA without destructive outcome. If the entire population had not been infected, then some of those who descended from the general population would not carry the modification, while others would. IF all current descendants have the genetic modification, then, at some point, only those who were infected survived. Those who escaped infection vanished. This is somewhat counterintuitive. It suggests that the observed evidence is somehow being misinterpreted. The original Darwinian proposition of descent from a common source works only if all parallel organisms descend from a single source. If there was one original proto-life, and it gave rise to all on the planet, then certain common traits should be observed. This is good common sense. But, if the chemical soup presumed to exist that gave rise to life actually ever existed, and spontaneous life became plausible, then the countless opportunities offered by this circumstance would necessarily have given rise to more than one proto-life. There should be, therefore, more than one master plan for life forms. More than one type of DNA. If life results from random chemical interactions, there should be more than one type of life. I like to think of this as the “linearity fallacy”. The propositions made by evolutionary theory make sense ONLY if successful evolution traveled through just one thread of genetic development for each evolved form. If all Chimps and all Humans share the same genetic anomalies, then at some point in the past there was only one survivor, the one who absorbed the virus without perishing. And, this survivor found a mate, one whose genes accepted the modification and also had no resonating deficiencies (a la hemophelia). This pair gave rise to all of the apes today. And, according to the above description, this has happened repeatedly. To say this is unlikely is polite. IF evolution is real, as presented by the scientific community, as being a self driven cosmic reality, then we should see far greater diversity in genotypes and forms. There should be many different humans, some with the virus insertions and some without. The planetary dispersion of forms should result in parallel designs that are not quite compatible genetically, as the result of regional adaptations. The origins scenario should have produced numerous differing coding mechanisms for DNA, yet one is common to all living creatures. As long as one thinks of a linear digression to a beginning of life, evolution makes sense. The instant one considers the innumerable branchings that must have occurred, the absurdity of the concept becomes obvious. As for macro evolution, Richard Dawkins claims that this is programmed a bit at a time into the DNA and released when needed. As, when a leg needs to become, in a single generation, a wing. His proposition seems plausible, but it also predicts (per the scientific method), that a lot of genetic information lies dormant and awaits release in all life forms. That is, there is a lot of prescient programming in DNA which will be released as improved phenotypes once the environment requires it. Yet, no genetic researcher has thus far identified this in any life form. Not even a little of it. The theory requires this prescience to be very common, yet none has been detected. IF each person is the result of macro evolution and shares genetic anomalies with lesser creatures and this all occurred through a single genetic thread, that would be a truly remarkable coincidence. One that, logically, would demand consideration of a cause greater than mere chance and happenstance. * Answer by zealot144
* 6 years ago * Report Abuse Asker's Rating: 5 out of 5 There were not one but several great answers! I like LAWYER'S ANSWER TOO. they don't allow me to give credit to all good answers but I DID FEEL THAT THIS GUY GAVE THE MOST INFORMATION AND THOUGHT TO HIS ANSWER INSTEAD OF JUST SENDING ME TO ANOTHER LINK HE SET MOST OF IT OUT!
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
R05
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2013 |
| Total Posts: 8826 |
|
|
| 04 Sep 2013 11:24 PM |
"6 years ago
"6 years ago"
"6 years"
Yahoo is older than I thought I guess? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
DAVID3788
|
  |
| Joined: 02 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2972 |
|
|
| 04 Sep 2013 11:25 PM |
get this bullcrap off front page
let it die slowey like we did with ventus ventus OT created : 13 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|