darwinism does not explain

I tried that…it isn’t what I was asking you…“switched on” by mutation…you have not explained that…it doesn’t make sense to me…

james who are you talking about…what are you rejecting here…come on off your perch

This doesn’t make sense. The fact that other types of selection pressures exist doesn’t in any way invalidate natural selection.

But it’s not that simple, and the only reason I bring this up, is that because like the pyramids, we do know quite a lot about genetics… we know that there are factors of selection through natural descent that don’t add up math-wise given conventional theories, just as we know for a fact about the pyramids. We know enough to know that much.

So your point is that we don’t know everything? I don’t see how that is a controversial claim at all.

Yes. What we are seeing with homo sapiens is described in my last post of this thread.

It’s not that we don’t know everything… we know that there has to be other variables besides all of our theories of natural descent that seem to apply to every other species. So the answer is either that there is some theory that we haven’t proposed yet, or that we were genetically modified from one of our ape ancestors by a species that actually underwent descent through modification in the natural way. My take is the latter, and I also used the evidence of the pyramids to support it… we know that Core 7 had to be machined, we are advanced enough to know this, we are even advanced enough to know the exact pressure involved in creating it, which exceeds our current technology with hydrolic presses… so we know that technology that was better than ours was used in Egypt, not different in some rudimentary way that we can’t understand, actually BETTER than our technology. So I wove these two points in together to make two points… geneticists know enough to know that our DNA doesn’t resemble anything like descent through modification relative to all other life on this earth, just like a mechanical engineer and physicist can tell from Core 7 that it was machined.

You’ve yet to demonstrate that in any substantive way. Your primary support for that claim seems to be your own incredulity.

Where are you getting that information?

bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc … ic_Serpent

This site has stuff that I’m not even willing to go out on a limb for, but it is one of the few that discusses the problem that 95% of our DNA is considered junk DNA, which from a fitness POV serves no evolutionary purpose, remember when we were talking about how it doesn’t make sense that a fish even made it into fresh water for very long because of predators and decreased surface area that would provide the predators the advantage in the transitional phase? Well… you made an unrelated comment, or perhaps it was Phon, that we lose the ability to drink salt water because it’s no longer adaptive… that means if 95% of our DNA is no longer adaptive, it wouldn’t be there, using the same logic.

We’ve come to learn that “junk” DNA is not actually just junk. It contains gene switches and the like which actually control genes throughout our lifetimes. Even if we did assume “junk” DNA was actually junk, I think it’s a mistake to compare it to an actual physical system which is no longer adaptive.

This is from the very website you linked me to:

It is a physical system. Why shouldn’t we compare it to a physical system. If there has been a purpose found for junk DNA than I take it back. My impression is that much of it is a vestige (thanks for pointing out I spelled the word wrong), and that it would simply fade away, just like what you called physical traits would fade away. We might even have less chromosomes etc…

  1. Your source is not a reliable scientific resource. The_Ashaninkas_and_The_Cosmic_Serpent… are you fucking kidding me? Are those the “geneticists” you’re talking about?

  2. “Junk DNA” is not junk. Read up.

  3. I already explained that your criticism of fish evolution is ridiculous. I noticed you chose to ignore that post and just keep going with your nonsense.

Your reply just said that they’d go for a food source… it didn’t deal with the game theory of less surface area and advantage to predators, which would multiple the predators in that transitional phase and push back the fish that were attempting to become fresh water. You actually didn’t address my point. And actually that site is pretty good, so don’t shit on me for linking to it. Just scroll to the top of the menu and look at some of the articles.

I supoose I disagreed with them that Junk DNA has a function… but I’m prepared to accept that I am wrong. I considered it vestigual DNA.

This is what I meant when I said I didn’t understand why you keep bringing up game theory. I don’t think evolution and adaption are matters of strategic decision making for fish. They don’t just hop into fresh water and say “this is my home now”. Some evolve to live in brackish or fresh water and are able to reproduce in order to create more fresh water fish. In the same sense, I don’t think predators see fish adapting to fresh water and decide to adapt in order to chase them back into salt water.

No, this one:

It is pretty safe to assume that if you see something in a nonsensical website that is nonsensical and absurd and conflicting with current scientific understanding, that is probably because it is nonsense.

That’s fine, but the transitional phase, because freshwater causes a convergence means that they’re clustered in a relatively small area compared to the ocean, making them easy prey for predators (they’re more predictable) and a predator would exploit this to the fullest. So actually it is a matter of game theory. Is it possible for a fish to move from oceans to fresh water through game theory? Someone suggested that all fresh water came from salinated water that slowly diffused with time from rain and allowed for slow adaptation… perhaps, but what about the dead sea? And what allows a fish to even adapt to something it didn’t come from in the first place? Try explaining that through evolution? Supposedly, we’re all common ancestors from salt going creatures. This means that the entire biochemistry of the creature had to change from a trait that didn’t exist. Unless it was a recessive trait from another world. You can’t create something from nothing.

Let’s ponder this idea… microorganisms landed on earth from comets from places where they had adapted to both conditions. The recessive trait triggered when they landed in fresh water from some of it’s species… and then you’re left with fresh water animals. The problem is that even though this should be a recessive trait, the dominant trait should be oceans… which means we’d have much stronger genetics for living around oceans than rivers or lakes… bringing salt inland as we began to colonize and being able to drink ocean water. Why can’t we make our own vitamin C anymore? Most animals can. What possible evolutionary occurance could there be, that has us eating vitamin C when we made our own? These are the types of questions evolution cannot answer sufficiently.

Life actually originated after both salt and fresh water became available from what I’ve read.

Source.

Thanks statiktech. Phon… you are a venomous one aren’t you?

I can’t make my argument that we were genetically engineered based on what I’ve seen here. That doesn’t mean we weren’t, I just can’t make it.