[186 / 30 / ?]
Quoted By: >>13440433 >>13440434 >>13440435 >>13440437 >>13440438 >>13440442 >>13440444 >>13440445 >>13440456 >>13440462 >>13440497 >>13440517 >>13440519 >>13440526 >>13440533 >>13440534 >>13440535 >>13440569 >>13440571 >>13440582 >>13440598 >>13440606 >>13440609 >>13440614
Seeing that my last thread was met with some people who had more chromosomes than brain cells, I decided to answer the unanswered questions.
>>338301210
>You can't prove the mutations are happening
We actually can. The thing about genetics and mutations is that scientitst can analyze DNA and they can detect variations that go outside the standard deviation. This is how we can detect hereditary disorders.
>You are reaching without definitive proof or observation
A common misconception is that we need to observe something in order for it to be true. If that were the case, forensic science wouldn't be a thing. We have observed evolution in action, but that's not a requirement. Science simply needs to be repeatable since physics is surprisingly predictable.
>how can life be created in a vacuum?
It wasn't. It was created on a planet rich with methan, carbon dioxide, and sulfur. All of which are needed for life. That's not a vacuum.
>How can the chain of "evolution" even start without the initial creation
There are quite a few theories on that. The one that is most accepted is quantum biology. In other words, hydrogen going through a quantum leap would change the molecular structure of that gene in our DNA.
>why can't they exist in tandem?
They can, but if God exists, then he had to have used evolution as the mechanism for life as that is the driving force for biodiversity.
>Irreducible complexity
The main issue with this is the assumption that if the universe is too complicated to just happen, then it had to be created. In that case, who created the creater? Surely God is more complex than the universe, so if he wasn't created, then the universe didn't need to be created either.
>>338301210
>You can't prove the mutations are happening
We actually can. The thing about genetics and mutations is that scientitst can analyze DNA and they can detect variations that go outside the standard deviation. This is how we can detect hereditary disorders.
>You are reaching without definitive proof or observation
A common misconception is that we need to observe something in order for it to be true. If that were the case, forensic science wouldn't be a thing. We have observed evolution in action, but that's not a requirement. Science simply needs to be repeatable since physics is surprisingly predictable.
>how can life be created in a vacuum?
It wasn't. It was created on a planet rich with methan, carbon dioxide, and sulfur. All of which are needed for life. That's not a vacuum.
>How can the chain of "evolution" even start without the initial creation
There are quite a few theories on that. The one that is most accepted is quantum biology. In other words, hydrogen going through a quantum leap would change the molecular structure of that gene in our DNA.
>why can't they exist in tandem?
They can, but if God exists, then he had to have used evolution as the mechanism for life as that is the driving force for biodiversity.
>Irreducible complexity
The main issue with this is the assumption that if the universe is too complicated to just happen, then it had to be created. In that case, who created the creater? Surely God is more complex than the universe, so if he wasn't created, then the universe didn't need to be created either.
